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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that the content is a static, fixed-price catalogue listing what each package includes, which is useful context, but says nothing about return shape or what omitting the filters does. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the offering, followed by the optional filters — nothing extraneous. The second sentence largely restates the enum values already present in the schema, which is a small redundancy, but it earns its place by marking them optional.

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 low-complexity read-only catalogue tool with two optional enum parameters, no nesting and no output schema, the description covers the content scope and both parameters adequately. The remaining gap is behavioural detail — default language and fallback when branche is omitted — which is minor at this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the parameter names are German, so the description does real work: it maps branche values onto business segments (Werkstatt = car repair shops and trades, Makler = estate agents, Pruefung = audit for mid-sized companies) and identifies lang as a language switch. It also labels both as optional, though it does not state the default language or whether omitting branche returns all segments.

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 names the concrete offering (fixed-price website packages for car repair shops/trades, estate agents, plus an Agent-Ready audit for mid-sized companies) including what is contained in them, so an agent knows this retrieves a catalogue of services and prices. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as fiperly_info or website_pruefen, but the resource itself is specific.

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 it is the tool to call when prices or package contents are needed, and the description notes that both filters are optional. There is no explicit when-to-use phrasing, no exclusions, and no pointer telling the agent to prefer website_pruefen or kontakt for other intents.

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