wotablet.de Preisvergleich

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying output details and input constraint (exactly one parameter). No contradictions. No mention of auth or rate limits, but annotations suffice.

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?

Bilingual but each sentence is purposeful: purpose, output, constraint. No fluff. Could be slightly shorter by using one language, but negligible.

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 only 2 optional parameters (but exactly one required), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and output. No major gaps.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description in the tool definition reinforces the 'exactly one' rule, which is not in the schema. This adds important usage constraint 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?

Description uses specific verb ('looks up'/'schlaegt nach'), identifies exact resource ('Produkt im wotablet.de-Katalog'), and distinguishes from sibling 'search_offers' by focusing on ID/URL lookup. It also lists specific output fields (Bestpreis, 30-Tage-Preisstatistik, Angebots-Link).

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?

States that exactly one of 'id' or 'url' must be provided, and hints at using 'search_offers' to obtain externalId. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for broad queries, use search_offers instead).

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it searches the full catalog (several hundred products), supports filtering, returns a 30-day price trend with priceStats.isLowest30d, provides facets for refinement, and notes the affiliate purchase with unchanged price. No contradiction with annotations.

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 German text is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the entire content is almost duplicated by the English summary at the end, doubling the length unnecessarily. The redundancy prevents a higher score despite the clarity of each individual section.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers when to use, what is searched, what each result contains, facets, and the read-only/affiliate nature. Minor omissions such as explicit routing to lookup_product or no-results behavior are not essential for a correct call.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description only restates that the catalog is filterable by search term, brand, and price range (query, brand, minPrice/maxPrice), adding no new format or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Findet' / 'finds') and states the resource with precise scope: cheapest current price for tablets in Germany in EUR across Amazon, eBay and AliExpress. The English summary reinforces the purpose, and the price-comparison framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lookup_product, which is plausibly a product-detail lookup.

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 explicitly gives trigger conditions: use this tool when a user asks about price, offer, 'guenstig', 'wo kaufen', or a specific tablet. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to lookup_product as an alternative, so exclusions are missing.

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