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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the return shape (top 3 with reasons, verdict, ban reasons, sources), the exclusion rule ('verdict nein' platforms are filtered and listed with reason), and the ranking caveat ('ranking ignores whether a plan exists'). It omits any note on auth/permissions or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition, then output shape, then filtering behavior, then cost/disclaimer. Dense sentences with no filler; every clause conveys a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the burden of explaining returns and does so (top 3, reasons, verdict, ban reasons, sources, exclusion handling). Combined with the free/no-legal-advice disclaimers, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 all seven parameters with examples and defaults. The description restates which inputs drive the result (goal, budget EUR, human minutes, country, skills) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Returns the top 3 platforms') and is explicit about the pre-condition that separates it from siblings: 'you have not chosen a platform yet', which contrasts with get_platform/list_platforms. An agent can tell this is the discovery/recommendation tool versus the lookup tools.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when your goal is to earn money with a small budget and limited human time and you have not chosen a platform yet'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. can_i_earn_here) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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