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.