Varianten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, enumerates the kinds of variants generated, and explains that 'umfang='breit'' additionally enables vowel swapping. It also clarifies that the tool only shows what 'recherche_lauf' will query, signaling a read/computation-oriented operation. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but the described behavior makes these seem unnecessary.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool category and core action. Each sentence contributes: variant generation, relation to 'recherche_lauf', and the 'umfang' parameter values. The dense technical phrasing and dashes slightly reduce readability, but there is no wasted content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, its role in the search workflow, its deterministic nature, and the main parameter. The main gap is the lack of explicit read-only/safety wording and any constraints on the 'zeichen' input, but for a simple variant-generation helper the description is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate for the bare schema. It gives meaning to 'zeichen' as the word token for which variants are built, and it documents the 'umfang' values 'knapp | normal | breit', including the concrete effect of 'breit'. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides a type and default. It does not fully define the boundary between 'knapp' and 'normal', but the core parameter semantics are sufficiently clarified.

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 names a concrete operation: 'Bildet deterministisch die Suchvarianten für ein Wortzeichen' and lists the variant categories it generates. It also differentiates the tool from the actual search workflow by saying it shows what 'recherche_lauf' will query, which helps separate it from search-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: the tool is meant 'für das Suchprotokoll und um Varianten zu ergänzen' and it reveals what 'recherche_lauf' will query, implying it is a preparation/helper step before running a search. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative variants-generating tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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