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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the content is limited to documented table data with source attribution and deliberately excludes ratings or evaluations, which tells the agent what it will not receive. It does not discuss size, pagination, or rate limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the source, the resource, the scope, and the content limitation, followed by a short qualifier. No filler, no repetition, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, and what it deliberately omits. The only minor gap is that it does not sketch the shape of the returned table, but that is a small omission given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations.

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 100% and the single optional parameter already documents that it filters rows by vendor name or keyword with an 80-character cap. The description's "ganz oder gefiltert" only restates that the filter is optional, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ("Gibt ... zurück") and a specific resource: the public comparison table from adfraudit.com about click-fraud software. Scope ("ganz oder gefiltert") and provenance ("mit Quelle") are stated, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name the siblings (klickbetrug_wissen, kostenloses_audit) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"ganz oder gefiltert" implies that a filter may be applied for a narrower result, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but not directive.

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