Kaufbedingungen

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

With readOnlyHint=true provided in annotations, the safety profile is already declared, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context — that the content is authoritative legal text to be reproduced verbatim to the user ('korrekt wiedergeben') and is machine-readable. No contradiction with annotations; the description aligns with a safe read operation.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The first defines the resource and its scope; the second states the trigger and the expected handling. The most important routing information ('vor einer Kaufempfehlung') is front-loaded in the second sentence, and every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the content scope and the usage trigger adequately. It could ideally specify the output structure beyond the single adjective 'maschinenlesbar', which is why it is not a 5, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 tool has zero parameters and a fully closed schema (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to document. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description cannot and need not compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource (purchase and usage terms) and lists concrete content dimensions — B2B-only, VAT, revocation, UWG/GDPR data-use limits — and the verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) makes the action explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings, which concern creating offers, searching industries, listing countries, and list details. It loses a point only because the resource type is implied rather than stated outright as an object.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Vor einer Kaufempfehlung abrufen und dem Nutzer korrekt wiedergeben' (retrieve before a purchase recommendation and relay correctly). This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and how to handle the result. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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