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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond annotations: results are paged, and the VAT rate is deliberately omitted from this response and only available via papierkram_get_proposition. It does not mention ordering defaults or what happens at the end of the page sequence.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the entity disambiguation front-loaded where an agent will read it first. The parenthetical about VAT is the one piece of routing information and is attached directly to the field list it qualifies.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially by naming the key fields and the notable omission (VAT). With pagination acknowledged and all four parameters documented in the schema, the definition is largely sufficient, missing only details like sort defaults and total-count behavior.

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 page, page_size, order_by and order_direction are all fully documented in the schema, including the requirement that order_by and order_direction be used together. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond 'Paged', so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource, and crucially disambiguates the ambiguous tool name by explaining that 'propositions' means stored products/services (Leistungen/Artikel). It also names the fields returned (article number, price, unit), so an agent knows what it gets. It stops short of explicit differentiation from the other list_* siblings, but the resource here is unique among them.

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?

Usage is implied (browse the stored product catalog) and the description points to papierkram_get_proposition for the VAT rate, which is a light form of routing. There is no statement of when this tool should not be used, no mention of prerequisites, and no guidance on when paging through the full catalog matters versus a targeted lookup.

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