run_kleinanzeigen_listings_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait beyond the schema: '1 point per returned record' cost/pricing. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor describe result format, pagination, or row limits beyond the schema's max_items.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the filter scope, followed by the cost note. No padding or redundant restatement of the name.

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 a 13-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it covers scope and cost while omitting return-shape hints, pagination behavior, and default values. Given full schema coverage for inputs, the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 six parameters carry enums with inline option descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only summarizes the filter families (category, price, condition, seller type, shipping, sort) without adding syntax, formats, or defaults beyond what structured fields provide.

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 ('Search live Kleinanzeigen ads by keyword') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as run_kleinanzeigen_listings or run_kleinanzeigen_listings_similar, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 conveys what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like run_kleinanzeigen_listings and run_kleinanzeigen_listings_similar in the toolset, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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