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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world tool. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results exclude contact data, radius results include distance_km and are distance-sorted, and shared requests appear once.

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 purpose is front-loaded and topics are ordered, but the description is a dense semicolon-separated block. Clauses about parameters absent from the schema reduce efficiency and add noise.

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 does useful work by explaining privacy, distance sorting, group result shape, and heating-oil units. It still leaves gaps around max_results and creates confusion by describing filter parameters the agent cannot pass.

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?

Adds useful semantics beyond the schema for location (digits as PLZ prefix vs city name) and radius_km (requires a 5-digit PLZ, results include distance). However, max_results is undocumented, and the description references filters such as youth_ok, budget_eur, price_type, group_ok, and kind that are not present in the input schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching open 'Gesuche' without contact data. The resource distinguishes it from provider search, though it does not explicitly name search_providers as the alternative.

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?

Gives clear usage rules for location and radius searches, including the 5-digit PLZ requirement for radius search, and points to join_job for shared requests. It lacks explicit when-not guidance versus search_providers or get_job.

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