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.