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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the search scope (catalog plus price history) and the shape of returns (matching items with unit and price), which matters since there is no output schema. It leaves out result-count limits and matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy).

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb, then the resource and scope, then the return. No filler, and the examples earn their place by demonstrating the expected query granularity.

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 single-parameter, read-only search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies purpose, input style, and the essential return fields. The only real omissions are result limits/ordering and how loosely the query is matched, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same examples already in the schema ("Fliesen verlegen") and adds only the ''job description'' framing of what query should express, plus that the string should be a few words.

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: searches the service catalog and price history for a job description and returns matching items with unit and price. The examples ("Fliesen verlegen", "Badsanierung") pin down the intended input domain. It never names or contrasts with siblings such as fetchCatalogContext or saveCatalogItem, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the examples of what to price and by ''price history'' scoping, so an agent can infer this is a pricing lookup rather than a catalog read/write. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over fetchCatalogContext, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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