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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a 50-hit cap, prices shown as net EUR or 'auf Anfrage', and the fact that brand_shop=mechstock is not live — a caveat that prevents a failed query.

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 search scope and immediately followed by the required-input constraint and the return shape. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 what comes back: up to 50 hits with net EUR prices or 'auf Anfrage'. For a 5-param read-only search tool, that covers the agent's needs; only result ordering and any pagination beyond the limit cap go unmentioned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by supplying the q-and/or-brand requirement, which the schema does not express as required, and by flagging the mechstock enum value as non-live, adding meaning the enum alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (Drivestock B2B catalog) and enumerates the product domains covered (inverters, servo, PLC, sensors, spare parts). That scope makes it clearly distinguishable from get_part, which retrieves a single part.

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?

States the entry constraint 'Requires q and/or brand,' which is essential context because the schema declares zero required parameters. It does not, however, route the agent toward or away from siblings like list_brands, get_part, or suggest_alternatives, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit.

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