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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only ACTIVE doors/businesses are returned, warning the agent that results are filtered and potentially incomplete. It says nothing about result limits or return format, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the usage trigger. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies scope, filtering behavior and a usage trigger — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination or result-size expectations, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there ('Ort oder Region' and 'Betriebsname oder gesuchte Leistung'). The description loosely echoes this mapping ('einen bestimmten Betrieb oder ein Angebot in einer Region') but adds no format or matching semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Sucht einen Betrieb im flowboxx-Hub') and adds a scope constraint ('nur AKTIVE Türen') that tells the agent what subset is searchable. It is clearly distinct from siblings like betrieb_anfrage or tuer_anlegen, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls 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?

The second sentence gives an explicit usage trigger: use it when an AI is looking for a particular business or offering in a region on behalf of a human. That is a clear context, but there are no when-not conditions and no sibling alternatives named, so it stops at 4.

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