Fiperly

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds the German topical domain but does not explain filtering behavior, what the query actually does, or what kind of results are returned beyond the vague 'topic pages' label.

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 short and front-loads the topical scope, with the optional parameter noted last. It is structurally efficient, though the terse phrasing contributes to the overall ambiguity.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Still, an agent would lack clarity on what 'analysen' returns and what the query parameter should contain.

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% for the single 'query' parameter. The description only repeats that the parameter is optional (already implied by the schema) and gives no indication of expected query syntax or how it narrows the results.

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 the resource ('Topic pages (kipode.de)') and a topical scope (AI, jobs, labour market, economy, robotics, energy in Germany), which helps distinguish it from siblings like fiperly_info or kontakt. However, it lacks a clear action verb: it is unclear whether the tool lists analyses, fetches a specific topic page, or searches content.

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 only usage hint is 'Optional: query.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as fiperly_info, kontakt, leistungen_und_preise, or website_pruefen, nor any explanation of what happens when the query is omitted.

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

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 no behavioral context of its own: it does not say whether the call is free of side effects, what form the response takes, or whether the content is static marketing copy versus live data.

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?

It is a single compact sentence that front-loads the identity statement and then lists the covered topics with no filler. The telegraphic, comma-spliced list style is slightly awkward but wastes no words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to sufficient since annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description should signal what the caller gets back (a company profile, links, or just prose) and does not.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is correct here.

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 enumerates what the tool covers (identity, AI analysis, websites, Agent-Ready, book), so the resource is inferable, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb stating what the tool actually returns. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling 'leistungen_und_preise', which overlaps with 'websites for businesses'.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to any of the siblings such as 'kontakt' or 'analysen'. The agent must guess whether this is an onboarding/background call or a substitute for the services or contact tools.

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

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 bar is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral clarification, 'Does not send anything', which prevents an agent from mistaking kontakt for a contact-form submission action. It says nothing about output format or how the links are delivered, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the 'does not send anything' caveat is placed after the content list where it works as a qualifier. The terseness tips into under-specification (no verb), but nothing is wasted.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value summary by enumerating the contact channels the agent will receive, which is adequate for this complexity. Only the ambiguity around the 'website check form' versus the website_pruefen sibling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool, and no parameter confusion is possible here.

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 enumerates the resources returned (phone, WhatsApp, email, booking link, website check form) so the agent can infer this is a contact-details retrieval tool, but there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool does. It gestures at sibling territory by naming the 'free website check form' without clarifying whether it returns that form or points at website_pruefen.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. 'Does not send anything' implicitly rules out using this as a message-sending action, which is useful, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over fiperly_info or website_pruefen.

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

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 agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that the content is a static, fixed-price catalogue listing what each package includes, which is useful context, but says nothing about return shape or what omitting the filters does. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the offering, followed by the optional filters — nothing extraneous. The second sentence largely restates the enum values already present in the schema, which is a small redundancy, but it earns its place by marking them optional.

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 low-complexity read-only catalogue tool with two optional enum parameters, no nesting and no output schema, the description covers the content scope and both parameters adequately. The remaining gap is behavioural detail — default language and fallback when branche is omitted — which is minor at this complexity.

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 0% and the parameter names are German, so the description does real work: it maps branche values onto business segments (Werkstatt = car repair shops and trades, Makler = estate agents, Pruefung = audit for mid-sized companies) and identifies lang as a language switch. It also labels both as optional, though it does not state the default language or whether omitting branche returns all segments.

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 the concrete offering (fixed-price website packages for car repair shops/trades, estate agents, plus an Agent-Ready audit for mid-sized companies) including what is contained in them, so an agent knows this retrieves a catalogue of services and prices. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as fiperly_info or website_pruefen, but the resource itself is specific.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is the tool to call when prices or package contents are needed, and the description notes that both filters are optional. There is no explicit when-to-use phrasing, no exclusions, and no pointer telling the agent to prefer website_pruefen or kontakt for other intents.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: answers come back in German, the call takes up to 60 seconds, and the check is free. It does not mention failure modes (unreachable site, invalid URL) which would complete the picture for a 60-second network operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core promise and packed with useful detail in a compact space. It reads as one long run-on sentence with a heavy parenthetical checklist, which slightly hurts scanability, and 'Free instant' plus 'Takes up to 60 seconds' sits in mild tension, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well: it names both scores, their ranges, the level scale, and the accompanying gaps, tips and result link. Combined with the disclosed latency and response language, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% with a single required 'url' field, so the baseline is 3; the description only restates 'Required: url'. The one addition is the constraint 'any public website', which hints at accessibility requirements the schema does not express.

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 ('Agent-Ready check of any public website') and enumerates the two concrete outputs (Grundlagen 0-100, Zukunft 0-100 plus level 0-5). The scope ('quick check', agent-readiness focus) clearly separates it from the sibling tools (kontakt, leistungen_und_preise, fiperly_info, analysen).

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?

Implies usage via 'free', 'instant' and 'any public website', and the runtime note helps an agent decide if it fits. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling 'analysen' tool or any when-not conditions (e.g. non-public or JS-heavy sites), leaving the choice to inference.

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