search_wlo_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: 'multi-query expansion and quality-based reranking' and 'filters accept both German labels and full URIs'. These provide non-obvious behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or cover pagination/result format, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds supporting details (content types, search behavior, filter syntax) in a logical order. Every sentence contributes valuable information, achieving high information density without being verbose.

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 moderate complexity (9 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, what content looks like, how search works (expansion + reranking), and filter value flexibility. It does not mention output format or defaults, but the schema covers those. This is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 high (89%), so the schema already handles most parameter documentation. The description adds cross-cutting semantics not present in individual param descriptions: all filters accept both German labels and full URIs. This genuinely helps an agent understand how to provide filter values, going beyond the schema's examples.

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 clearly states the tool 'Search WirLernenOnline (WLO) for individual educational content items' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on individual items (Inhalte/Materialien) as opposed to topic pages or collections. It also gives concrete examples of content types (worksheets, videos, lesson plans), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when searching for individual educational materials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_wlo_topic_pages or search_wlo_collections. There is no 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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