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.