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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (Treffer mit id, Titel und Link) and the intended follow-up action via fetch, plus the limitation regarding prices and availability.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs return format, next step, and exclusion into a compact, readable structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, what the results look like, how to proceed, and what to use instead for prices/availability. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the query parameter already documented as 'Suchbegriff oder Frage'. The tool description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; no compensation is needed.

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 ('Durchsucht') and a concrete resource ('Inhalte des Hotels'), enumerating the content types covered: häufige Fragen, Zimmerkategorien, Pauschalen. It also explicitly names what the tool is not for, distinguishing it from verfuegbarkeit_pruefen without ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by stating that the tool returns hits and that the full text should be retrieved with fetch. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Für Preise und Verfügbarkeit NICHT geeignet — dafür verfuegbarkeit_pruefen verwenden', directing the agent to the correct sibling tool.

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