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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that results include affiliate links, that the affiliate model does not change prices, and it details the data returned (price trend, facets, etc.). No contradictions are present.

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 approximately 120 words and front-loads the main function and usage cues. However, it includes redundant bilingual content (German and English paragraphs conveying the same information). Trimming the English repetition would improve conciseness without losing meaning. Overall, it is structured but slightly longer than necessary.

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 tool has five optional parameters and an output schema. The description explains the search scope, filtering options, and key return fields (title, best price, brand, price trend, attributes, links). It mentions facets for refinement. Given the output schema exists to detail return values, the description sufficiently covers contextual completeness 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description summarizes filtering capabilities ('filterbar per Suchbegriff, Marke und Preisspanne') but does not add new parameter-specific details. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds little value beyond restating the schema's information.

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 clearly states the tool finds the cheapest current price for tablets in Germany across Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress. It includes a specific verb ('Findet'), resource ('Tablets'), and geographic scope. The sibling tool 'lookup_product' implies a more focused lookup, and the description's usage cues (e.g., 'Nutze dieses Tool, wenn ein Nutzer nach Preis, Angebot...') help distinguish from it, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when a user asks for price, offer, 'guenstig', 'wo kaufen', or a specific tablet. It outlines the search scope (~150 products) and available filters, providing clear context. While it could explicitly contrast with the sibling tool (lookup_product), the given guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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