mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important output/display behaviors: every hit has a canonicalUrl that must be shown directly, and images arrive as marked content blocks that should always be displayed. While it doesn't discuss side effects or rate limits, the purpose of the tool strongly implies a read-only search and the behavioral details present are substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and contains important display norms, but a few elements are padding, such as 'Zentraler USP-Case' and 'wichtig ist ein Kaufanreiz'. The text is not overly long, yet it does not earn all its words.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description covers the critical output/display details for correctly using results, and it explains the core search scenario. It omits no-result handling and sorting, but for two parameters and a straightforward query tool, the description supports practical use well enough.

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 schema has 100% coverage. The description repeats that the query can be a title, composer, or instrument, but it adds no new meaning about the limit parameter or query formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prüft') and names the resource: it checks for B-Ware, reduced, or used alternatives to a queried title, composer, or instrument. It focuses on the alternative-offer use case and distinguishes its intent from siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. It is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool is for.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'Zentraler USP-Case' suggests importance but does not explain how to choose this tool over sibling tools like search_bargain_stock or search_sheet_music. No exclusions, alternatives, or context are provided.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that each hit includes a canonicalUrl field and that images are delivered as separate content blocks with a preceding text marker, and it instructs the agent to always display them. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent concrete expectations about the result format and display requirements, though it does not mention error cases or permissions.

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 three sentences long, starting with the core purpose, then a caveat, then detailed output instructions. Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy, making it reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary function.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially covers return details (canonicalUrl, image block, B-Ware status) but leaves out other potential fields like price, description, or availability. It also lacks information on error behavior or how catalog affects results. For a single-item lookup of moderate complexity, the description is not fully complete.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already says. It mentions 'Artikelnummer' and 'Noten oder Instrument', but does not explain the optional 'catalog' parameter or how it interacts with productId. Since schema description coverage is only 50% (the catalog property is undocumented), the description should compensate but fails to elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 the specific action ('Liefert Detailinformationen') and resource ('zu einem einzelnen Artikel (Noten oder Instrument) per Artikelnummer'), clearly distinguishing it from catalog-wide enumeration. It explicitly says 'Kein Ersatz für eine Katalog-Enumeration', which differentiates it from the sibling search 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use the tool by specifying 'per Artikelnummer' and warning it is not a substitute for catalog enumeration. It also provides post-call instructions (show canonicalUrl, always display image) that guide the agent's behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state clear conditions like 'use this when you have an exact product ID.'

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the obvious search function by specifying the max result limit (20), the presence of a canonicalUrl field that must be displayed with every product mention, and the inclusion of real image content blocks with text markers. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail that helps the agent handle results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides detailed presentation instructions. It is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds actionable information, such as the URL display rule and image handling. It is well-structured, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the most critical behaviors: result limits, URL presentation, and image handling. It does not mention error scenarios, empty results, or authentication, but for a search tool these are minor gaps. The catalog specification (29) adds helpful context. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to call and interpret results 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the note that query can be in English. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the limit. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool searches for B-ware, demo, and used instruments from catalog 29, explicitly calling it the central USP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_instruments (likely regular instruments) and search_sheet_music. The verb 'Sucht' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 gives strong context by labeling this as the central USP for bargain hunting, implying it's the go-to for discounted items. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer one over the other. It provides clear situational context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the 20-result cap, the absence of full catalog enumeration, the presence of canonicalUrl per hit, and the optional image blocks with display instructions. It does not cover error cases or other returned fields, but it gives meaningful operational behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core search scope, then the result limit, then the output/display requirements. Every clause carries information, though the display instructions are dense and could be slightly tightened.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the search scope, result cap, and key output behaviors (canonicalUrl, images). However, it does not describe other likely result fields (e.g., product name, price, availability), which would help an agent present results fully; pagination and error behavior are also absent.

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 the schema already explains query as free text (instrument, brand, model, English allowed) and limit with default/max. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only restates the 20-result cap, which aligns with the limit parameter.

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 action ('Sucht') and a concrete resource ('GEWA-Instrumenten- und Zubehörsortiment von musikalienhandel.de'), making the tool's scope clear. It also notes the result is a limited hit list, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_sheet_music or search_bargain_stock.

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 intended use is implied by the resource scope: search the GEWA instrument/accessory catalog. The 'keine vollständige Katalog-Enumeration' note gives an exclusion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals a max 20 hit list, B-Ware note, no full-text descriptions, no full catalog enumeration, mandatory canonicalUrl display, and that images arrive as real content blocks that should always be shown. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are well 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?

The description is three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by precondition and behavioral output instructions. The third sentence bundles several relevant guidelines (canonicalUrl and image display) into one dense sentence, but it is still efficient and every clause adds operational value.

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 should explain return values enough for an agent to correctly render and act. It does state the hit list contains canonicalUrl and optional images, plus a B-Ware hint. Yet it doesn't disclose other likely result fields (title, composer, price, publisher) necessary for presenting a search result in most contexts, leaving a meaningful 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?

The schema already describes 100% of the parameters. The description adds search axes (title, composer, instrumentation, publisher) that map loosely to query, // 'composer', and 'instrumentation' properties, but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not elaborate on `limit` or `bargainOnly` beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states that the tool searches the sheet music catalog on musikalienhandel.de by title, composer, instrumentation, or publisher. It is a clear action+resource statement and naturally differentiates itself from siblings like search_instruments or search_bargain_stock, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. Mentioning limitations like 'keine Volltext-Beschreibungen' and 'keine vollständige Katalog-Enumeration' partially implies when not to use it, but there is no explicit recommendation of when to pick check_bargain_alternative, get_product, or another sibling.

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