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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does contribute the return shape (title, summary, link) and site scoping, but says nothing about result count limits, pagination, or what an empty/omitted query yields.

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 purpose and return fields are front-loaded, which is good, but the entire text is essentially duplicated in German and English, roughly doubling length without adding new information. The bilingual form may be intentional for a German site with an international language enum, yet the redundancy costs efficiency.

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 closed-world, two-optional-parameter site search with full annotation and schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, expected inputs, and return fields adequately. Minor remaining gaps: no mention of how many results are returned, whether paging exists, or behavior on an empty query.

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% — both the topic parameter and the language enum with its Accept-Language default and English fallback are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only example phrasings ('Modelle von <Marke>') that hint at query formulation, not semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Findet') with a concrete resource ('Seiten auf wohandy.de') and enumerates what is searched (comparisons, Ratgeber, brand pages) and what comes back (Titel, Kurzbeschreibung, Link). The sibling tools (lookup_product, search_offers) are never named, so the agent must infer that this tool returns editorial pages rather than product or offer records.

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 three concrete trigger intents in both languages ('welcher Handy ist gut für …', 'worauf achten beim Kauf', 'Modelle von <Marke>'), which makes the correct invocation pattern easy to recognize. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or explicitly deferring to search_offers/lookup_product for product or price lookups.

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