KI-Radar24

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'alle Details', which is useful return-scope context, but says nothing about missing IDs, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then parenthetically supplies the parameter source and example. No words are 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 id-based read tool with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, input source, and return scope. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the load for the single parameter. It does so by stating the ID comes from search and giving a concrete example format ('listing-123'), which meaningfully clarifies origin and shape beyond the bare string type in 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 ('Liefert alle Details') and resource ('Eintrag von ki-radar24.de'), and distinguishes the intended input by tying the id back to search. It is clear what the tool returns and why an agent would use it, though it does not explicitly name which sibling tool should be avoided.

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 phrase 'id aus search' clearly indicates the tool is used after a search to retrieve full details for a result. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-tool comparisons beyond that implicit workflow, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that each hit carries a profile link where the inquiry and booking flow happen, and that a no-match response returns a hint plus alternative AI agencies/companies. It stops short of describing result ordering or the exact response 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?

Three tight sentences: the core action and filters come first, followed by what a hit contains and then the no-match behavior. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 correctly explains the return payload (profile link, booking path, fallback agencies), which is the essential missing structure. It is nearly complete, only omitting the undocumented anzahl parameter and result-count/pagination behavior.

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%, so the description must do the work, and it explains faehigkeit, stadt and max_stundensatz_eur. However, the fourth parameter (anzahl) is never mentioned, nor are constraints like the 1–20 cap or any default, leaving a real gap.

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 ("Findet buchbare KI-Freelancer") plus the source platform and the three filter axes. The resource (freelancers) is naturally distinct from the sibling tools ki_unternehmen_suchen and ki_tools_suchen, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 description gives clear context for use — search freelancers by skill, optionally narrowed by city and maximum hourly rate — and even explains the fallback path when nothing matches. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling or states exclusions, which is what separates it from a 5.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the two filters are optional and the rationale behind them (free entry tier, EU/GDPR), but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or default behaviour when 'anzahl' is omitted.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the optional filters follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the burden of describing what comes back; it does not mention result format, whether the list is ranked, or the default when 'anzahl' is omitted. Combined with the 50% parameter coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about return shape.

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 50%: 'aufgabe' and 'nur_eu' are documented, while 'anzahl' and 'nur_kostenlos' have no schema description. The description partly compensates by clarifying 'kostenlose/Gratis-Einstieg' (free entry tier, not fully free) and tying 'nur_eu' to DSGVO relevance, but it never mentions the 'anzahl' result-count parameter, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Findet KI-Tools') scoped by task ('passend zu einer Aufgabe'), which is far more informative than the bare title. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the very similar sibling ki_unternehmen_suchen, nor from the generic 'search'/'vergleichen' tools, so an agent cannot disambiguate from the description alone.

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: you call it when you need an AI tool for a described task, and the optional filters hint at budget- or GDPR-constrained scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, even though ki_unternehmen_suchen and search are close siblings that would benefit from routing guidance.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and data-source character are covered. The description usefully adds the DACH regional emphasis, which is not in any structured field, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, scope, and accepted inputs all land in one pass.

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 lookup tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is roughly adequate, but the undocumented "anzahl" parameter, the absence of any result-format hint, and the vague nature of location matching (city? country? radius?) leave real gaps for an agent calling it blind.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it clarifies that "thema" is the search subject and "ort" is an optional location filter. The third parameter, "anzahl" (1-20), is never mentioned, and no format, default, or matching semantics are given for any of the three.

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 ("Findet") plus a concrete resource (KI-Unternehmen und KI-Agenturen) and a regional scope (DACH). This implicitly separates it from ki_tools_suchen (tools) and freelancer_finden (individuals), but it never names a sibling or draws the line explicitly.

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 sentence describes what inputs the search accepts ("nach Thema und optional Ort") but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer from the sibling list whether to route here rather than to ki_tools_suchen or freelancer_finden.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (id, Titel, Link), which is genuine value since no output schema exists, but omits any mention of result limits, pagination, or ranking behavior.

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, zero filler: the first establishes scope, the second states the return contract. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-param search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field information and identifies the data source. The remaining gap is the complete absence of routing guidance among the four sibling search tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an inline example ("Chatbot für Kundenservice"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about query syntax, language handling, or matching behavior, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (durchsucht) and resource (ki-radar24.de, a German directory) and enumerates the three indexed entity types, so the agent knows what corpus is being searched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tools (ki_tools_suchen, ki_unternehmen_suchen, freelancer_finden), which cover overlapping subsets.

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 guidance at all. With four sibling tools that are narrower versions of the same operation, the description should say whether this is the general-purpose fallback or when to prefer the specialized searches; it says nothing.

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 this as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'nebeneinander' (side-by-side), hinting at the comparative output shape, but says nothing about return format or ordering — modest added value over the annotations.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb, the count constraint and the id source. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse given the missing output context.

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 agent gets no description of what the comparison actually returns beyond 'nebeneinander'. For a single-parameter tool with annotations present this is adequate, but the comparison output and any ordering/format behavior remain unexplained.

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 there is one parameter, so the description must carry the load. It explains that ids are 2–5 entries sourced from search results, which adds provenance meaning, but the 2–5 range simply restates the schema's minItems/maxItems.

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 (Vergleicht) and resource (Einträge) plus the cardinality bound (2 bis 5), so the agent immediately knows this is a multi-entry comparison. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like 'fetch' or 'search', which an agent could otherwise confuse with entry retrieval.

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?

'ids aus den Suchergebnissen' implies the ids come from a prior search, giving implicit workflow guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to 'fetch' or the search siblings.

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