Objekte suchen

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned field set, but does not disclose pagination, empty-result behavior, or how the two filters combine - meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, filter, and return fields in one pass.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations cover safety. However, the absence of any mention of the niederlassung filter and of the filter combination logic leaves a material gap for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description names only 'Kundentyp', completely omitting the 'niederlassung' parameter that exists in the schema. This can mislead an agent into ignoring a supported filter, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Sucht Objekte (Kundenstandorte)') plus the filtering criterion, and even lists what comes back. Sibling tools cover unrelated domains (Reinigungsplan, Reklamationen, Materialbestand), so no explicit differentiation is needed, though it is not provided.

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 implies usage as a customer-site lookup by Kundentyp but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention the sibling tools or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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