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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes beyond these by explaining the human processing delay and advising against frequent polling, which is important behavioral context not present in the structured metadata.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage timing and a critical warning. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and a key behavioral caveat. It gives enough context for an agent to know what to expect and how to interact appropriately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The schema trivially covers all (non-existent) parameters, and the description provides no parameter details because none exist. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines for no-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool shows which files were requested and which have arrived, using the specific verb 'Zeigt' and resource 'Dateien'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'datei_anfordern' by positioning itself as the post-request check, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool after 'datei_anfordern' instead of guessing, and provides a clear exclusion: do not call repeatedly in short intervals because the human needs time. This gives strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing the related workflow.

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