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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns the complete text rather than a snippet or summary, but it does not disclose potential errors or edge cases. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately communicates the action and the required input source. There is no redundant content; every word contributes to the meaning.

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, one-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, where the ID comes from, and the read-only nature is already covered by annotations. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the sole parameter 'id' is already documented as 'id aus einem search-Treffer'. The tool description essentially repeats this same semantic, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Liefert') and a specific resource ('den vollständigen Text zu einer id aus search'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' by indicating that it delivers the full text for a search hit ID, not the search results themselves.

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 implies the correct usage context: the tool is meant to be called with an ID obtained from 'search'. It provides enough context to route an agent from search results to this full-text retrieval step, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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