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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds real behavioral context: pagination at 25 per page, the set of aggregates returned (totals, buyers, Länder, trades), and the firm_shared_max caveat explaining that shared framework ceilings are excluded from the company's sum. That caveat is a substantive disclosure not recoverable from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return contents and then the firm_shared_max caveat. Dense but every element carries information; the firm_shared_max sentence is lengthy yet justified because it prevents amount misinterpretation.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (totals, buyers, Länder, trades, awards, published sum, page size). Only minor gaps remain, such as no guidance on handling an invalid slug or a company with no awards.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 25-per-page page size and the slug/URL origin. The description restates those details rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Contracts won by a company') and immediately narrows scope to legal entities with a vergabeweiser.de page, excluding sole traders. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_buyer, get_tender and find_organisations.

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?

Gives a concrete eligibility condition ('legal entities with a page on vergabeweiser.de/unternehmen only, never sole traders'), which tells the agent when this tool applies and when a company won't be covered. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for the excluded cases, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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