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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact fields returned ('Titel, Objektart, Ort, Preis, Fläche, Zimmer, Status und den Link zur Angebotsseite'), the default behavior without filters, and the boundary that it only searches publicly marketed offers. No contradictions with 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's scope, the second lists the output fields, and the third provides the fallback alternative. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it lists the return fields and explains the search scope and the off-market fallback. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but given the schema documents the limit parameter, these are minor gaps. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical information is missing.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., ort, limit, nutzung, objektart). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does mention that filters are optional ('Ohne Filter'). This is consistent with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Durchsucht' – searches) and resource (the publicly marketed offers of Kopp Real Estate), and explicitly defines scope (München und Umland, Wohnen und Gewerbe, Kauf und Miete). It differentiates from siblings by naming kopp_suchprofil_hinterlegen as the alternative for off-market properties, and the other siblings (valuation, prices) are clearly distinct.

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: it searches public offers, and explicitly says 'Ohne Filter werden alle Angebote geliefert' (without filters all offers are returned). It also provides an explicit alternative: if nothing fits, use kopp_suchprofil_hinterlegen for off-market matching. However, it does not contrast with kopp_bewertung_anfragen or kopp_immobilienpreise_muenchen, though their purposes are self-evident.

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