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.