kataloge_suchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed lookup. The description adds useful behavior – that an empty suchbegriff returns everything, implying potentially large result sets – but says nothing about result ordering, size, or failure modes for an invalid catalog value.

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 front-loaded blocks: one sentence of purpose, then per-parameter notes with concrete examples ('Kauf', 'GmbH'). Every element is functional and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the catalog domain and search semantics well enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is what the returned entries look like (code plus label) and whether results are capped, which the absent output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden: it lists the exact permitted values for 'katalog' and defines 'suchbegriff' as partial name or exact code with empty meaning all. This is precisely the information missing from the schema; it loses a point only for not covering case sensitivity or behavior on an unknown catalog value.

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 concrete verb plus resource ('Katalogwerte des Portals nachschlagen') and enumerates the four catalogs that can be queried, which makes it unambiguous what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like portal_ausfuellen or antrag_schema, though the enum of catalog names effectively separates it in practice.

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 rather than stated: the mention of partial names and exact codes suggests this is a lookup used to resolve valid values before filling the portal. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X code' guidance and no warning about when not to call it or what to do with the results.

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