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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds important behavior beyond the schema: results are limited to 20, the tool is not meant for exhaustive enumeration, each hit includes canonicalUrl, and the agent must proactively show that link when naming products. This is substantial and useful behavioral context.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately adds the key behavioral constraints and output-handling 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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, limitations, and result presentation sufficiently. It lacks only minor context such as explicit ordering or empty-result behavior, and it does not mention sibling alternatives, but the core information an agent needs to invoke and use the tool correctly is present.

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 describes both parameters fully (query as free text, limit with default and max), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions the max of 20 results, which aligns with the schema but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific action ('Sucht'), a specific resource ('GEWA-Instrumenten- und Zubehörsortiment von musikalienhandel.de'), and distinguishes it from related catalog tools by noting it is not a full catalog enumeration. This makes the tool's role clear relative to siblings such as search_sheet_music and 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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever searching the GEWA instrument/accessory assortment. It also gives a limitation ('keine vollständige Katalog-Enumeration'), which acts as a when-not signal, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for choosing search_bargain_stock, search_sheet_music, or get_product.

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