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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that only published articles are searched and discloses the shape of the result (Titel, Kurztext, Link), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: scope and search type first, result contents second. No filler, nothing repeated from the name or annotations.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, the source restriction, and the returned fields. Minor gaps remain: no mention of result ordering, language of results, or behavior when nothing matches.

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 description coverage is 100% (both query and limit are documented with ranges and an example), so the baseline is 3. The topical examples in the description loosely illustrate valid query terms but add no syntax, matching behavior, or ordering detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Stichwortsuche) plus the exact resource (veröffentlichte Ratgeber- und Magazinartikel von Eigenheim Invest) and gives topical examples. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_properties or get_market_overview, which target listings and numbers rather than editorial 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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope: keyword search over published guides. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. for background/explainer content vs. property data) and no exclusions or preconditions named.

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