epl_sl_suche

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by noting that it returns a direct link and legal basis currently due to the BAG-API not being public, implying fallback behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary text. The use_case section is well-structured and adds value without redundancy.

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 (search with pagination and format), the description covers the purpose, use cases, and current behavior. Output schema exists for return values. Minor gap: does not explain how to interpret multiple results or the precision of the search, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema has high description coverage (100%) with each parameter described (suchbegriff, limit, format). The tool description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Suche' (search) and the specific resource 'Spezialitaetenliste' (SL) for medications covered by insurance. It further specifies the use case of determining if a medication is covered, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing epl_ggsl_abfrage and epl_migel_suche.

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 states when to use this tool: to answer 'Ist Medikament X kassenpflichtig?'. It also provides alternatives for birth defects (epl_ggsl_abfrage) and aids (epl_migel_suche), giving clear guidance on when not to use it.

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