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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral facts not in the annotations: fixed page size of 20 and a default ordering of 'most checked facts first', which tells the agent what results and ordering to expect.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. 'Filters of the site' is slightly vague phrasing, but the pointer to list_categories is efficiently placed.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested filters object of nine sub-properties and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never hints at the result shape (listing fields, total count, pagination metadata) and delegates filter documentation to a sibling without explaining the filters object itself.

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 only 50%, and the description leaves query, where, page, category, and most filter sub-properties to the schema. It does clarify the default sort semantics ('most checked facts first') and points to list_categories for filter names/values, but that is partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Find listings of Yoga-Ausbildungen') plus scope (site filters, 20 per page, checked-first ordering), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_listing or compare_listings, but it does name list_categories as the companion for filter discovery.

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 sentence about list_categories implies a workflow (discover filter names/values before searching) but never states when to use this tool versus get_listing or compare_listings, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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