angebote_suchenListet Angebote mit Nummer, Kunde, Betrag und Status. Zeigt auch, welche bereits in eine Rechnung umgewandelt wurden — und welche offen liegen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bis | No | Spätestes Datum, JJJJ-MM-TT. | |
| von | No | Frühestes Datum, JJJJ-MM-TT. | |
| anzahl | No | Höchstens so viele (Vorgabe 25, Grenze 100). | |
| nur_offen | No | Nur noch nicht umgewandelte Angebote. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by stating it shows which offers were already converted to invoices and which remain open, giving the agent a clear picture of the output without needing to infer.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds relevant information. No filler.
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?
As there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining return values. It lists the fields (Nummer, Kunde, Betrag, Status) and the special conversion status, which covers the core information. It doesn't mention limits or ordering, but those are optional parameters in the schema.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description aligns with the 'nur_offen' parameter by mentioning open offers, but doesn't detail parameter syntax or add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions output fields rather than input parameters.
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 uses the specific verb 'Listet' (lists) and identifies the resource 'Angebote' with key fields (Nummer, Kunde, Betrag, Status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like angebot_anlegen (create) and rechnungen_suchen (invoices) by focusing on offers and their conversion state.
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 gives clear context about what the tool returns (offers with conversion status), implying its use for checking which offers are converted or open. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool name clearly identifies a distinct resource (Angebot, Auftrag, Rechnung, Material, etc.) and action. Even potentially similar pairs like material_buchen and material_zuweisen are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent resource_action pattern in lowercase with underscores (e.g., kunde_anlegen, material_suchen). A few status/query tools like betrieb_ueberblick and datei_stand use noun compounds, but these are consistently used for state queries and do not break the overall convention.
With 23 tools, the server falls into the 'heavy' range of 16-25. While the breadth of a handwerker management system justifies many operations, the count is high and some areas (like customer management) are underrepresented, making the set feel larger than necessary.
The core order-to-invoice workflow is well covered, but there are notable gaps: no customer search or update, no conversion from Angebot to Rechnung, and no ability to change order status. These are significant omissions that agents must work around, even though the descriptions clearly state these limitations.