mop_search_biogramme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior, intended use cases, and the return structure ('Liste von Biogramm-Treffern mit id, name, birth, death, gnd'). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'Suche' strongly implies it, and there are no contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns). It is slightly verbose with minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the PURPOSE section, but overall every section earns its place and it remains easy to scan.

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?

For a search tool with 4 simple parameters and an output schema (indicated), the description provides a return format and usage context. It lacks examples, error conditions, or pagination details, but for this level of complexity it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section explains every parameter: 'query: Suchbegriff (Name)', 'birth_year: Filter nach Geburtsjahr', etc. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. The inclusion of 'ctx: FastMCP Context' is slightly problematic because ctx is not in the visible schema, but the core parameters are well described.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Suche in MoP-Biogrammen (detaillierte Biografien)' and a PURPOSE section stating 'Detaillierte biografische Einträge finden.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like mop_search_register and mop_search_documents by specifying that it targets detailed biographical entries.

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 provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, including concrete alternative tools ('nutze search_register("personen")', 'nutze search_documents()'). This is exactly the kind of usage guidance that helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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