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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: permission-dependent visibility ('sofern die Bereiche ... freigegeben sind'), limited contact data ('nur der Name'), cancellation-specific reason, and the exact scope of returned data.

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 long, but every clause earns its place by specifying a distinct field or condition. The main field list is front-loaded, and the final sentence adds useful cross-tool context without redundancy. The structure makes a complex return payload easy to scan.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return values — and it does so exhaustively: employee assignments, material billing status, un-invoiced hours, photo counts, cancellation reason, invoices, and net price. Permission caveats are also spelled out, so an agent knows what to expect under different access settings.

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 100% schema coverage and a single parameter described as 'Die Kennung des Auftrags,' the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description does not add format, example, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Zeigt einen einzelnen Auftrag ausführlich' — and enumerates exactly which fields are included. It also distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like 'auftraege_suchen' by emphasizing 'einzeln' and from 'rechnung_anlegen' by noting it is the pre-invoice view.

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 clearly identifies the intended context: 'Der übliche Blick, BEVOR aus dem Auftrag eine Rechnung entsteht.' It explains that material and hours shown here correspond to what 'rechnung_anlegen' would use, giving the agent a practical cue for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly with other view/search siblings.

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