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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns price, unit, and stock, and explains the `nur_knapp` filter behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and adds a valuable use case in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior, key filter, and return fields. It doesn't detail pagination, but the schema documents `anzahl`. The description is adequate and well-contextualized within its sibling set.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description's mention of `nur_knapp` reinforces the schema but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Durchsucht') and resource ('Materialkatalog'), and clearly states the search criteria (Bezeichnung/Artikelnummer) and output fields (Preis, Einheit, Lagerbestand). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like material_ansehen (view single) and material_buchen (booking), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a concrete usage scenario: with `nur_knapp` it lists items below minimum stock, described as 'der übliche Einstieg vor einer Bestellung' (the usual entry point before an order). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to choose this search tool.

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