search_wlo_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the composite return structure (separate buckets { content, collections, topicPages }) and the flexible filter format (German labels or URIs). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-focused search tool, these are less critical; the added context goes beyond the schema.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It conveys the key value proposition, return structure, and filter behavior without any fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's combined nature and the top-level result structure. It lacks examples of return values or error handling, but these are not essential for a search tool when the schema is thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that all filters accept German labels or URIs, and that maxCollections applies to both collections and topic pages. This extra semantic information enriches the parameter understanding beyond individual 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?

The description opens with "Kombinierte WLO-Suche" and explicitly lists the three content types (Einzel-Inhalte, Sammlungen, Themenseiten) searched in one parallel call. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating "Nutze dies statt mehrere Suchtools nacheinander zu rufen," indicating this is the combined variant.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool instead of calling multiple search tools sequentially. This frames the alternative and the recommended context. Though it doesn't explicitly state when to use the individual tools, the contrast is clear enough to guide selection.

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