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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the date is typically the first-session date rather than the submission date, empty kommune means all bodies, and anzahl is capped at 30. It does not say whether results are paginated or what fields come back, which leaves a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter glossary and a notable caveat about the date field. Every line carries information; only minor loss from the run-on, bullet-less parameter block.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema search tool the description covers purpose, every parameter, key data quirks and an escape hatch to `vorlage`. Missing is any statement of what a result record contains (title, date, link?) and the differentiation from `drucksachen_suchen`.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: suchbegriff (full text over title and document body), kommune (code from `kommunen`, empty = all), art (free-form, source-native names with examples), jahr, neueste_zuerst (date vs relevance ordering) and anzahl (1–30) are all given meaning. This compensates fully for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Names a specific verb (Volltextsuche) plus the exact resources searched (Vorlagen, Anträge, Anfragen, Mitteilungen) and even the fields (Titel und Dokumenttext) and geographic scope (Ruhrgebiet). It partially differentiates from the sibling `vorlage` by deferring details there, but never distinguishes itself from the very similar `drucksachen_suchen`, which is the main ambiguity risk.

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?

Explicitly routes detail lookups and Beratungsergebnisse to the `vorlage` sibling and tells the agent where kommune codes come from (`kommunen`). What is missing is guidance on when to use this versus `drucksachen_suchen`, so the riskiest choice among siblings is left implicit.

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