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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, and the description goes beyond them: byte-exact stored copy versus live regeneration without persistence, plus the fact that the file may contain photos and a signature and is bound to the disabled "Dokumente" area (an access context). Useful extra context, though permission/error behavior is only implied.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the when-not rule and content/access caveats. No 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the return is (a PDF, stored or generated live) and its possible contents. It does not say how a caller detects or handles the no-proof states at call time, a minor remaining gap.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the parameter documentation and the description adds nothing about auftrag_id format or where it comes from. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (liest) plus specific resource (Auftragsnachweis) and explicit scope: only documented or completed orders. Easily distinguished from sibling PDF tools like beleg_pdf and bestandsliste_pdf without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not rule: no proof exists for planned, running, or cancelled orders. It does not name an alternative tool for those states, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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