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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint/openWorldHint false). The description adds genuine behavioral value by noting the follow-up chain (get_flyer, get_contact) and that contact data is exposed only as links for a human. It does not, however, describe pagination or result shape.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core action, but the middle clause about projects[] and the 'Flyer' search word is telegraphic and hard to parse, and it is not clearly separated from the routing advice.

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 required parameters, a full schema and no output schema, the definition supplies the workflow context an agent needs: it is the search entry point, followed by get_flyer and get_contact, with contact data restricted to human-readable links.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description references a 'projects[]' concept for certain q/location values that is not an actual parameter, which adds a little behavioral hint but no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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: search/filter purchase offers ('Kaufangebote suchen/filtern') scoped to Konstanz/Bodensee. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_listing, but the search-and-filter framing is clear enough for an agent to identify it as the query entry point.

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 downstream routing ('Danach get_flyer + get_contact'), which tells the agent what to do after a successful search. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling get_listing, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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