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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool searches 'verfügbare' (available) bouquets and filters by occasion, color, style, and budget, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or what the result contains, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence in German: one clause for the search action and one for the filtering capabilities. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of bouquets, matching criteria, pricing) but it does not. It also does not mention pagination, sorting, or how results relate to other tools like check_availability or create_cart. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no return specification, the description feels incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into categories ('Anlass, Farbe, Stil, Budget') and adds 'Budget' as a conceptual umbrella for minPrice/maxPrice, but it omits 'flower_type' which exists in the schema. Overall, it adds minor semantic grouping but does not significantly extend the schema's existing parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Sucht verfügbare Blumensträuße bei Blumen Komander München' (searches for available flower bouquets at Blumen Komander Munich). It uses a specific verb ('Sucht') and resource ('verfügbare Blumensträuße'), and the filtering attributes distinguish it from sibling tools like check_availability, create_cart, or get_shop_info.

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 implies usage: it is the tool for searching/filtering bouquets, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over siblings or when not to. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The purpose alone gives some guidance, but not explicit criteria for selection.

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