get_price_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important non-obvious behaviors: per-item errors (status: 'error') do not abort the whole request, the 999-item limit, and a request-level error dict for auth/transport/invalid requests. It also references the partner_warehouse semantic caveat. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 core purpose, then efficiently organized into error handling, Args, and Returns. Each section has a clear job with no redundant prose. The pointer to the schema for the partner_warehouse caveat avoids duplication while preserving important guidance.

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 3-parameter query tool with a nested items array and an output schema available, the description provides all necessary contextual information: input structure, request-level parameter scoping, return format on success and failure, and error resilience behavior. Nothing critical for an agent to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that shipment_type and partner_warehouse apply to the entire request ('nicht pro Artikel'), which prevents a common misuse. It also summarizes the items list structure (material number, quantity, optional unit). Much of the parameter detail is repeated from the schema, but the request-level distinction and 999-item limit are genuine additions.

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 opens with a precise verb-plus-resource statement: 'Preis und Verfügbarkeit für bis zu 999 FEGA & Schmitt-Artikel abfragen.' It clearly delimits scope (max 999 items) and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which perform price/availability lookups. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it exists.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to query price/availability for up to 999 articles, with request-level shipment type and optional warehouse. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool overlaps with this function, so the implicit guidance is sufficient. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria, hence not a 5.

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