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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful expectation-setting beyond that: what each result contains (topics, SEO values, profile link) and that prices are excluded, though it omits pagination limits and sorting behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the filters and output shape. No filler; only mild polish would earn a 5.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and annotations handle safety. It covers most of what an agent needs for a 9-parameter search tool, with sorting and dofollow filtering left to 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?

Schema description coverage is 56%, and the description names the main filter dimensions (Suchbegriff, Themen, Sprache, SEO-Werte), roughly mapping to the parameters. Sorting, nur_dofollow and pagination are not explained in the description, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor adds syntax 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 and resource ('Sucht im Katalog von trusted blogs nach Blogs') plus the intended use case (Kooperationen, Sponsored Posts, Linkaufbau). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling themen_auflisten, though the filter-by-topics angle implies the relationship.

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 intended scenario (finding blogs for cooperations) is clear, and the available filters are named. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or direct pointer to the sibling tool for discovering topic slugs, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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