As in motivated law enforcement would want to avoid a questionable warrant that could ruin all their other achievements related to the case? Certainly not in Germany, where the admissibility of evidence is not really a factor: if evidence is assumed to be true then it exists no matter the provenance, if you want to sue the obtaining party for the obtainment process that's a separate case.

And what about situations where the surveillance doesn't even result in a trial? If a suspicion is made up to gain e.g. intelligence over some personal opponent (or personal opponent of someone the eavesdropper swaps favors with) evidence disadmittance couldn't even be an issue at all. But the party requesting the warrant would find it comparatively easy to appease their conscience with "nothing I wrote in the warrant request was a lie". I believe that most people doing bad things don't really like to acknowledge that to themselves, and that many who might actually talk themselves into requesting a questionable warrant would rather not risk running out of "wiretap wildcards" they might later need for doing their actual job. Of course a system trying to cause self-regulation with a quota could still be designed in dysfunctional ways (e.g. if there were "leftover wildcards" at the end of a quarter, those would be powerful fuel for abuse), but with a bit of care those pitfalls should be avoidable.