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

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses real-world behavior: Kopp matches against public and non-public offers and contacts the user. It also states that nothing is transmitted without explicit consent, which supplements the sparse annotation data. No contradiction found.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then consent. It is slightly repetitive around consent (three sentences making the same point), but every sentence contributes actionable information and there is 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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description supplies the key missing behavioral context: external matching, off-market listings, notification, and privacy/consent. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool responsibly, though it does not describe the confirmation or response the user should see.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to re-document params. It adds some context that the consent boolean is a hard prerequisite and that 'Kauf oder Miete' maps to the vermarktung enum, but it does not add per-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?

The description opens with a specific verb and object: it registers ('hinterlegt') a search profile at Kopp Real Estate for purchase or rent. It then explains the profile is used for matching against new and off-market listings, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like searching listings or requesting valuations.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('Nur aufrufen, wenn der Nutzer das ausdrücklich möchte') and a hard prerequisite: show the entered data and obtain consent before any transmission. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them, but the consent and invocation guardrails are clear.

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