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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral traits: issued documents are byte-exact originals without status stamping, drafts are generated live as ENTWURF, issued documents without an original are rejected, and access is bound to the disabled Documents area. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds operational details in a logical order. It is slightly long but most sentences earn their place by clarifying edge cases.

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?

The description thoroughly covers behavioral edge cases, but with no output schema it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw PDF bytes, a file path, or a stream). That leaves a meaningful gap for an agent that must handle the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents rechnung_id as an internal identifier from rechnungen_suchen or angebote_suchen. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Liest die PDF einer Rechnung, Quittung oder eines Angebots.' It clearly defines the tool's scope, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as rechnung_ansehen, which may also expose invoice data.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose and by behavioral details about issued versus draft documents, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not name a sibling tool or state when this tool should be preferred over another.

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