get_search_filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: labels are in German, values come from a live external form (so they can change), and the filter taxonomy is enumerated. It stops short of auth or refresh/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the enumeration is compact. The trailing list of filter categories is somewhat redundant given a full output schema exists, which slightly dilutes efficiency but the text is far from bloated.

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?

With a complete output schema and full annotations, the definition need not restate return format or safety. What remains under-covered is routing guidance: an agent must infer that this is a prerequisite for search_therapists and that it differs from get_preferences. Otherwise it is complete for a no-arg read tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description would need to document inputs, and it correctly spends no space on them.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get current filter IDs and German labels') and names the authoritative source ('the actual therapie.de search form'), which also implicitly distinguishes it from get_preferences (user-supplied preferences) and the search siblings. It even enumerates the filter categories returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'current filter IDs ... from the actual search form' suggests an agent should call this to learn valid filter values before constructing a search, but the description never states when to call it, what it should be called before, or any alternative tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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