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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses permission constraints (only owners/admins, members get an error), exclusion behavior (MCC accounts are absent), error semantics ('fehler' means that connection's accounts are missing), and that Search Console sites appear even if already used. It also warns that vorschlaege are heuristic name matches requiring verification against raw lists.

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 purpose and usage triggers are front-loaded and efficient, but the long 'Rückgabe:' block enumerates return fields in detail even though an output schema exists. Much of that enumeration is redundant, and the description would be tighter if it kept only the behavioral notes (fehler semantics, MCC exclusion, heuristic warnings) rather than restating the full response shape.

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 read-only discovery tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, permissions, edge cases, and the relationship to workspace_create. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to interpret the results.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the sole parameter: 'agentur' is the account name when the user manages multiple accounts. That is sufficient to invoke correctly, though the brief phrasing leaves no room for additional nuance such as what happens if omitted when multiple accounts exist.

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 question and states the exact resource: accounts visible to connected Google/Meta/LinkedIn access that are not yet assigned to a workspace. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_workspaces (existing workspaces) and workspace_create (the follow-up action), so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives three explicit triggers: when the user asks which customers they can still create, after connecting a new access, or for an account without workspaces. It also names workspace_create as the downstream tool, making the when-to-use and what-to-do-next relationship unambiguous.

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