Search listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant with structured data. The only added value is 'return normalized summaries,' which hints at output shaping but doesn't say what normalization entails or whether results are paginated/capped.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first. Slight waste in the trailing 'Read-only,' which repeats the annotation rather than adding new information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values; 'normalized summaries' is the only signal about result shape and field content. The parameter surface is fully covered by the schema, but the return format and any result caps remain unspecified.

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%, so all seven parameters (query, location, price bounds, sort enum, radiusKm, maxPages) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering, formatting, or default information beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb (search), the resource (listings), the source (Kleinanzeigen.de), and the return shape (normalized summaries). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_listing, though the search-vs-fetch-detail split is obvious from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for keyword discovery and get_listing is for detail retrieval, but the description never says when to use one over the other or mentions the sibling. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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