wokonsole.de Preisvergleich

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds specific output details (Bestpreis, 30-Tage-Preisstatistik, Angebots-Link), which is helpful context.

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?

Two sentences in both German and English. Clear and front-loaded, though slightly repetitive due to bilingual redundancy.

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?

Given full schema coverage, output schema, and thoughtful annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, output types, usage rule, and read-only nature.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. Description adds critical usage constraint that exactly one parameter must be provided, which is not encoded in 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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a specific product in the wokonsole.de catalog by ID or URL, and lists outputs. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_offers' by specifying lookup vs search.

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?

Explicitly states 'Genau eines der Felder id/url angeben' (exactly one of id/url) and marks the operation as read-only, providing clear when-to-use and constraint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches the full catalog, returns product fields (best price, trend, attributes, links), includes facets for refinement, and notes the affiliate purchase model. No contradiction with annotations; the only omission is lack of details about limits or edge cases, which is minor.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but it repeats the core functionality nearly verbatim in German and English ('Findet Spielekonsolen...' and 'Finds the cheapest current price...'), adding unnecessary length. Each sentence generally earns its place, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, usage trigger, output contents, filtering capabilities, and read-only nature, and the presence of an output schema relieves the need to detail return structures. It lacks explicit guidance on no-result behavior or how to combine facets with repeated calls, but these are minor gaps for a 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds only a general statement that results are filterable by search term, brand, and price range, which roughly maps to query, brand, minPrice, and maxPrice. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, and the schema examples ('Balkonkraftwerk', 'iPhone') are inconsistent with the console-focused description, which could confuse an agent.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Findet Spielekonsolen zum guenstigsten aktuellen Preis in Deutschland') and specifies the marketplaces (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress). The usage trigger 'Nutze dieses Tool, wenn ein Nutzer nach Preis, Angebot, ... fragt' clearly differentiates it from the sibling lookup_product, which is about product lookup rather than price comparison.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use condition: when a user asks for price, offer, 'guenstig', 'wo kaufen', or a specific console. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly contrast it with lookup_product, so it stops short of a full 5.

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