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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds useful context: results are abbreviated summaries, listings are German-language, and max_price silently excludes unpriced offers. It lacks detail on result ordering or paging behavior beyond the schema's offset param.

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?

Front-loads what the tool searches, then location/format constraints, then the no-arg browse case, then the get_offer handoff. Four sentences, none wasted, with the most decision-relevant information first.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by saying what comes back (short summaries) and where to go for the rest (get_offer). It also closes the loop on a downstream obligation (surface the URL) that an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Schema coverage is 83%, and the schema already documents German search terms, the postal-code/prefix/town forms, and the max_price exclusion. The description mostly restates these, adding only emphasis ('use German search terms') rather than new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (products/services from local Austrian businesses on fixfind.at), plus the geographic scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_offer by declaring it returns only short summaries.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call without arguments to browse, use get_offer for full details, and always hand the user the offer URL. It also tells the agent which language to search in, which is a real failure mode for non-German agents.

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