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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the 50-result cap, the date-then-distance sort order, the affiliate nature of ticket_url and that results without a ticket link are equally valid, the meaning of status 'abgesagt' and datenstand_warnung=true, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about 'beschreibung' being data. It also explains how entfernung_km behaves when umkreis_km 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, result cap and sort order, then grouped into short value-bearing notes about links, status, data freshness and distance. The final sentence is long and carries two separate ideas about entfernung_km, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of naming return fields (mutify_url, ticket_url, status, datenstand_warnung, entfernung_km, umkreis_km) and their interpretation. Only the unexplained 'kategorie' parameter and default date-range behavior keep it from being fully complete for a 6-parameter search tool.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates for the most consequential gaps: it explains that omitting umkreis_km widens the search to the surrounding area and that umkreis_km appears in the response, and it ties nur_mit_ticketlink to the ticket_affiliate concept. 'kategorie' remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and no guidance is given on the von/bis window beyond the schema's format.

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+resource ("Sucht Termine bei mutify") and immediately adds the result cap and sort order, so the agent knows this is a search/listing tool. It never names the sibling 'termin' or 'orte_suchen', so the boundary between event search and place search must be inferred from the names 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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for finding events, and the description does prescribe presenting mutify_url/ticket_url per result. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use termin/orte_suchen when Y', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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