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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (title, URL, summary) and topic scope, which is helpful, but it doesn't specify how search works (e.g., full-text vs title-only), result ordering, or any limits beyond those in the schema. The read-only nature is implied 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 a single sentence with a bilingual translation. It is brief and front-loaded, but the English translation is redundant for an agent that can handle German. Still, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and topic scope. However, it doesn't connect to sibling tools (e.g., how to use the URL with ratgeber_lesen) or mention potential pitfalls. It is complete for a search tool but misses cross-tool guidance.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with bilingual descriptions and examples for all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 it searches the site's guides on specific topics (air conditioning, window sealing, etc.) and returns title, URL, and summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ratgeber_lesen (which reads a guide) and the various calculators.

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 use for finding citable sources related to the listed topics. It gives a clear use case but doesn't explicitly exclude other contexts or mention when to prefer alternatives. A note on using this before ratgeber_lesen would make it stronger.

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