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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the catalog is public and independent of the user's own contract, and it describes the return fields ('mit Preis und Kurzbeschreibung'). This helps the agent understand both access scope and output content.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a crucial scope clarification in parentheses. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is complete: it explains what is listed, the fields returned, and the public/contract-independent nature. No additional behavioral details are necessary 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the schema is empty.

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 states a specific verb ('Listet') and resource ('Hosting-Pakete'), and adds a scope qualifier ('öffentlicher Produktkatalog, unabhängig vom eigenen Vertrag') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve the user's own resources. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for browsing available packages, not managing owned services.

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 parenthetical note 'öffentlicher Produktkatalog, unabhängig vom eigenen Vertrag' provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see available offerings rather than the user's contract-specific data. However, it does not name any alternative tool (e.g., prepare_hosting_order) or explicitly 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.