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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what comes back — prices per m², suitability per material, what does not work, and a recommendation — which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and then enumerates the return contents; almost every clause earns its place. It is somewhat long and colon-chained, but nothing is redundant.

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 and fully optional parameters that all have documented defaults, the description carries the load of telling the agent what the tool returns — and it does so concretely. A brief note on when to prefer it over the sibling price calculator is the only real gap.

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 all three parameters are fully enumerated with detailed value glosses, including defaults ("Ohne Angabe: fuss", "unbekannt (wir rechnen wie bei Betonpflaster)"). The description restates the three input dimensions but adds no semantics 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?

The description names a concrete verb ("Listet ... auf") and a concrete resource ("Fugenmaterialien von Pflasterlux") scoped by three inputs (Belag, Fugenbreite, Nutzung), and even sketches the output (Preis je m², wann welches Material passt, Empfehlung). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling steinreinigung_preis_berechnen, so the agent must infer the comparison-vs-calculation split from the name alone.

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 implies the usage context (choosing a joint material, with the cleaning price as a reference), and the phrase "Preis je m² zusätzlich zur Reinigung" hints that this is not the plain cleaning price tool. But there is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" statement, and the sibling price calculators are never mentioned.

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