web_get_cable_lengths

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only query ('abfragen'), explains the scope across warehouse locations, and discloses the empty-list behavior for specific cases. It does not cover invalid material numbers or authentication requirements, but for a simple lookup these are minor.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the main operation and scope, and the second adds useful edge-case behavior without any 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, scope, and empty-result semantics. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by tying the input to 'eines Kabelartikels', making it clear that the material_number identifies a cable article. The input schema already defines the parameter as a required string, and the sole parameter is self-explanatory enough that this level of semantic context is adequate.

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 precise action and resource: 'abfragen' of 'verfügbare Kabellängen ... eines Kabelartikels über alle Lagerstandorte'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings because it is the only one focused on cable lengths.

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?

It gives clear context: this tool queries cable lengths across all warehouse locations. It also explicitly mentions when the result will be empty (non-drum articles or global out-of-stock), which helps the agent know when not to expect data. It does not name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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