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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the scope (~150 products), read-only nature (consistent with annotations), affiliate links with unchanged prices, and return fields including price trend and facets. It does not contradict any 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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and usage, followed by details. It is slightly verbose due to bilingual text (German and English), but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise but is well-structured.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of inputs, outputs, usage, and limitations. It covers the 30-day price trend and facets but omits edge cases like no results. Most aspects are adequately addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by search term, brand, and price range, which maps to query, brand, minPrice, and maxPrice parameters, but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 watches in Germany across Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress, using the verb 'findet' and specifying the resource 'Uhren zum guenstigsten aktuellen Preis'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lookup_product' by being a search tool rather than a product 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 states when to use the tool: 'Nutze dieses Tool, wenn ein Nutzer nach Preis, Angebot, "guenstig", "wo kaufen" oder einem konkreten Uhr fragt.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with the sibling tool.

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