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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the returned URL expires after 90 days, the record comes from the GoBD archive, and the result includes postmark and provider details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with the primary purpose and provides a concise list of returned data. The German and English versions duplicate the same content, but this is reasonable for a bilingual tool and does not make the description bloated.

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 simple read-only tool with one required UUID parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the caller receives in enough detail. The main gap is the unexplained 'reasoning' parameter, but this does not undermine the overall usability.

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%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's lack of parameter documentation. It adds meaning for orderId by linking it to a sent order, but the optional 'reasoning' parameter is never explained, and no parameter-level detail is given in the schema either.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liefert'/'Returns') and a specific resource (Einlieferungsbeleg for a sent order), and enumerates the concrete result components: download URL valid for 90 days, postmark, mail provider, and GoBD archive record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_status or order_send.

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 conveys that this tool applies to a 'versendeten Auftrag' (sent order), which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest guidance level.

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