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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds useful context beyond that: results are 'sichtbare Einträge (ohne Kontaktdaten)', meaning contact data is withheld, and it explains that distance-sorted results appear only for Umkreissuche and that each entry carries up to three photos plus a shareable link.

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 dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the scope and then the result fields, followed by filter semantics. Every sentence carries operational detail, though the run-on packing of field definitions makes it slightly harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering return values, the description comprehensively documents the response shape (id, art, kategorie, titel, beschreibung, ort, kurzname, seit, km, fotos, link) and the sorting behavior for Umkreissuche. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting this search tool is missing.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters, and the description meaningfully adds to it: it defines art values (verleihen = to lend, verschenken = gifted, suchen = seeking), clarifies that ort with only digits means a PLZ prefix while otherwise it is a place name, and states that umkreis_km (1–200) must accompany a 5-digit PLZ. It does not add anything for q or max_results, and kategorie is explained mainly in the schema itself.

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 and resource: listing visible entries in the Verleihen & Verschenken category, and it enumerates the result fields. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the singular ding_holen by describing a plural, filtered list, but it never names a sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of filters (q, art, ort, umkreis_km) and the remark that Umkreissuche requires a 5-digit PLZ. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like ding_holen or ding_anfragen, and no stated exclusions.

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