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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure and does add value: it states B-Ware status is included and every result has a canonicalUrl field. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, but the read-only nature is evident from 'Liefert'.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a key routing rule and an output-field instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter detail lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, result contents, and a required link-handling behavior. It is slightly light on failure/error behavior and the full response shape, but adequate for selection and execution.

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 50%; productId is well explained in the schema, and the enum values for catalog are self-explanatory. The description adds only implicit parameter meaning via 'Noten oder Instrument' and does not explain when or whether catalog is needed.

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 ('Liefert Detailinformationen') and a precise resource ('einzelnen Artikel ... per Artikelnummer'), and explicitly states it is not a substitute for catalog enumeration. This clearly distinguishes 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?

It gives a clear usage context: use when you have an article number and need details for a single item. The 'Kein Ersatz für eine Katalog-Enumeration' sentence is an effective exclusion, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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