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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that each result carries title, summary and link, but says nothing about result counts, ranking or empty-result behavior.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what it finds, which page types, then what each result contains, then example intents. The full German/English duplication doubles the length, which is defensible for a bilingual site but adds no new information.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (title, summary, link), and the schema fully documents both optional parameters. What remains missing — result limits, ordering, what happens with an empty query — is minor for a read-only 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, language) are documented in the schema, including the ISO 639-1 list and the Accept-Language/en fallback rule. The description adds only illustrative query phrasings, not new semantics for the parameters, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Findet die passenden Seiten auf wotablet.de') and enumerates the page types it returns: comparisons, buying guides, brand pages. It implicitly separates itself from lookup_product and search_offers by framing the result as editorial content pages, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Concrete example intents are given in both languages ('welcher Tablet ist gut fuer …', 'worauf achten beim Kauf', 'Modelle von <Marke>'), which makes the triggering context clear. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools for product data or offers.

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