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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint, that only AKTIVE Tueren are returned, but says nothing about result count, ranking, or pagination. Valuable but thin beyond what the annotations supply.

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 the scope constraint before the usage note. Slight verbosity in 'fuer einen Menschen', but no sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, the active-only filter, and the intended caller. It leaves the result shape and any limit unstated, which is the main remaining gap.

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 in the schema ('Ort oder Region, optional', 'Betriebsname oder gesuchte Leistung'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no matching semantics, e.g. whether text matches name only or free-text services, nor how ort and text combine.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource ('Sucht einen Betrieb') plus a scoping qualifier ('im flowboxx-Hub, nur AKTIVE Tueren'), so an agent knows exactly what is being searched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as betrieb_fragen or betrieb_anfrage, which is the only thing keeping it out of the top band.

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?

'Nutzen, wenn eine KI fuer einen Menschen einen bestimmten Betrieb oder ein Angebot in einer Region sucht' gives a clear triggering context for the tool. No alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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