Kleinanzeigen Scraper & Kleinanzeigen API: Deals & Alerts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: a pay-per-result billing model with concrete unit prices and a note that cost scales with returned ads and detail level. It still omits pagination behavior and rate limits, so not 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the cost model; nothing is wasted. The pricing sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-required-params search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, geography, and cost — which is the material information. Pagination/ordering behavior and the shape of the result payload are left unspecified, but the schema carries defaults and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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% and the schema already documents every parameter with examples and defaults (radius rounding, ~25 ads per page, keyword-per-location semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (ads from Kleinanzeigen, Germany) and enumerates the returned fields (price, location, posting time, deal score), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like search_second_hand_europe or search_vinted, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The reader must infer from the parameter set (no required params) that this is a keyword/location search tool, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer it over the Europe-wide or Vinted alternatives.

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