Kessen Maschinenbau

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds that the content is a fixed company profile covering capabilities and quote prerequisites, which is useful, but it discloses no rate limits, freshness, or other behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement of purpose, followed by a dense but purposeful content inventory and a one-line call to action. No filler sentences, though the long enumeration is slightly list-heavy rather than structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the response will contain, which is precisely what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Together with the annotations and a fully documented single optional parameter, nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single language parameter has an enum documented in the schema, so the description needs to add little. It adds nothing about the language parameter, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter documentation.

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 ("Returns the company profile of Kessen Maschinenbau GmbH") and then enumerates the concrete contents: core competence, machine series, output figures, design standards, applications, partners, quote requirements, contact data. An agent immediately knows what this tool yields, and the opening "Call this first" positions it against the sibling tools.

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?

"Call this first to understand what Kessen can do for a food producer" gives explicit ordering guidance and a clear use context. It does not name the alternatives (search_machines, send_inquiry) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return shape (Markdown with title, description, content), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not mention rate limits or truncation, so it is not exhaustive.

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 lean sentences, with the capability and return format front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause carries information; only the parenthetical return list is mildly redundant with the surrounding sentence structure.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the input intent (any page / path) and the expected return fields, which is the important missing piece. It omits edge-case behavior (invalid URLs, missing pages) but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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% and the single url parameter already documents accepted forms (full URL or path, with an example). The description only implies that any page is addressable, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (returns/reads) and resource (any page of kessen-maschinenbau.de) plus the output format (Markdown with title, description, content). It also positions itself against the sibling search_machines, so an agent can tell discovery from retrieval without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to read machine details (performance, formats, options) found via search_machines, which gives a clear trigger condition and names the complementary tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., non-machine pages, or when the search snippet already suffices).

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

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description adds return-shape context (machines and machine groups with description and page URL) and the empty-query behaviour, which the annotations do not convey. No auth, rate-limit or pagination detail, but the safety profile is already covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical category list is dense but genuinely useful for matching terminology. Three sentences, no filler; slightly heavy on enumeration but nothing that should be cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden and does so (matching machines and machine groups, with description and page URL). Combined with the optional-query note and the annotated safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters (query, language) are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description only restates the empty-query case for the query parameter and adds nothing about language semantics, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (searches) plus resource (machine catalogue of Kessen Maschinenbau), with the domain and the concrete machine categories enumerated. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_company_profile, read_page and send_inquiry, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the key usage mode: a query narrows the catalogue, while an empty query returns everything. That is meaningful routing guidance, but it never states when to prefer a sibling (e.g. read_page for a specific machine page), so there is no exclusion or alternative named.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write profile is already known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the request leaves the system as an e-mail to a third party, requires explicit human consent, and the answer arrives personally by e-mail or phone (i.e., asynchronous, no immediate programmatic result). It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, hence not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the consent prerequisite and the response path. No sentence is redundant, and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that the answer comes back by e-mail or phone rather than as a structured return value. Combined with the consent gate and the covered parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the lack of any error or delivery-failure note keeps it from a 5.

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 every field is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the inquiry categories (quote, consultation, spare parts, machine inquiry), which hints at message content but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (sends), resource (a request/inquiry), the recipient (Kessen Maschinenbau sales team), and the channel (e-mail), plus the inquiry categories it covers. It is unambiguously distinct from the read-only siblings get_company_profile, read_page, and search_machines.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition for use: only on behalf of a real person who has confirmed the content and consented to their contact data being sent. This is a clear when-to-use gate that an agent cannot infer from the schema, and the read-only siblings are obviously not alternatives for this action.

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