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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It adds the default page size (24), the total-hit field (treffer_gesamt), offset-based pagination, and the separate accessory output (zubehoer) — all useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each with distinct value: core search, pagination/total count, and result scope (accessories excluded, image alternative). Information is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 tells the agent about treffer_gesamt, zubehoer, and the image lookup path, which is sufficient for a search tool. It doesn't detail the bouquet item fields, but filters and enum values fill most gaps. For an 8-parameter search, this is adequately complete.

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% and every parameter already has a description. The tool description summarizes filters by occasion/color/style/budget and mentions limit/offset, but adds no new semantics 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 opens with a clear verb phrase ('Sucht verfügbare Blumensträuße') and specifies the vendor/location. It explicitly lists filtering dimensions and distinguishes the results from accessories and image retrieval via get_product_image, setting it apart from sibling 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 provides clear context: this is for searching bouquets, with pagination behavior. It explicitly excludes accessories ('kein Blumenvorschlag') and points to get_product_image for photos, offering partial alternative routing. It does not mention every sibling or state explicit when-not conditions, but the purpose is evident.

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