bfs_search_tables

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: first call makes ~682 API requests, subsequent calls within 1 hour are instant, and error handling behavior (error and hint fields). Does not mention potential rate limits or result size.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, details, caching note, parameter listing, and return info. Every sentence is informative. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Complete for a search tool with an output schema. Covers purpose, parameters, caching, and error handling. Mentions that results include table IDs for other tools, which aids in task chaining.

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?

Description provides explicit parameter explanations, including examples for query (e.g., 'Lehrkräfte'), description of theme_code filter, lang, and limit. This adds significant value beyond the schema's descriptions, even though schema has descriptions. The examples help understand usage.

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?

Clearly states it searches BFS statistical tables by keyword in titles, distinguishing from sibling tools like bfs_list_tables_by_theme. Mentions relevance to downstream tools (bfs_get_table_metadata, bfs_get_data).

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?

Explains that it performs full-text search across all tables and describes caching behavior (first call slow, subsequent instant). Implicitly guides when to use for keyword-based search, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools or mention exclusions.

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