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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds content-level transparency by specifying exactly what the operation shows: the matching foreign entry, distance, and decision reasoning, which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the main action and then uses a colon and concise list to elaborate. There is no filler, no repetition of the title/name, and every clause earns its place.

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 parameter-free read-only display tool, the description covers the essential return semantics and scope. It omits minor niceties like empty-state behavior or ordering, but nothing an agent needs in order to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline applies and there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The mention of 'eigenen Eintraegen' clarifies whose data the tool operates on, adding implicit context beyond the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and a concrete resource ('Treffer zu den eigenen Eintraegen'), then goes beyond the name by detailing the result contents: which foreign entry matches, the distance, and the decision rationale. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings such as meine_posts.

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 phrase 'zu den eigenen Eintraegen' establishes a clear trigger and scope: use this tool to view matches generated for the current user's own entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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