Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope, topics, and return fields (title, URL, summary). However, it does not mention potential limitations, rate limits, or the read-only nature, which could be assumed but not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient and front-loaded with the main action. It is slightly verbose due to bilingual repetition (German and English), but the extra sentence about 'citable sources' adds value. Overall, it is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema covers parameters fully and there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (title, URL, summary per match) and the topics covered. It could be more explicit about the result format (e.g., list of objects), but it is sufficient for most use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches getecoback.com guides on specific topics (air conditioning, window sealing, etc.) and returns title, URL, and summary. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'citable sources for the answer', which distinguishes it from ratgeber_lesen (likely for reading content).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when needing to find guides/sources on the listed topics) and provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.