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.