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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on semantics the annotations cannot carry: fixed vocabularies for leistung and zertifikat, hierarchical parent-term expansion, and the non-obvious behavior that groesse and besteht_jahre_min silently exclude companies lacking that data. Pagination/return-shape behavior is left to the schema.

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 content is front-loaded and each German sentence earns its place, but the entire paragraph is then repeated in English, roughly doubling length with zero new information. Duplication is the main drag on an otherwise tight description.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the two hardest parts (vocabulary discovery and exclusion side effects) and hints at result composition. Sorting, default result ordering and what a hit contains are not addressed, which keeps it short of 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: that leistung and zertifikat are closed-vocabulary slugs requiring a discovery step, and that a parent term in leistung matches all subordinate services. The data-loss behavior of two filters is also made explicit.

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 (suchen) and resource (deutsche Unternehmen) and enumerates the six filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with firma_abrufen (single-company lookup) or anfrage_senden, 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?

Gives actionable strategy: if the leistung/zertifikat slug is unknown, search with q first and harvest slugs from results; parent terms broaden matches; dropping groesse and besteht_jahre_min widens the search. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, 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.