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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that the passage is returned 'vollständig, so wie sie auf der Seite steht' and that a slug switches the behavior to returning the entire page. It does not say what happens on an invalid or stale id, but the read-only contract is unambiguous.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval behavior and then the parameter modes, with no wasted clauses. The parenthetical English restatement is duplicative but cheap and aids matching.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema that covers return structure, the description supplies everything needed to call it: both accepted id forms and the resulting scope of content. The missing piece is sibling disambiguation against get_page, plus any guidance on invalid ids.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'id' parameter — and it does: the value is either the Kennung from a search result or a page short name, with a worked example. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether an id and a slug are ever ambiguous or need a prefix.

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 and resource (fetch a passage or an entire page) and explains the two modes clearly, including a concrete example slug ('sicherheit'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_page, which appears to serve the same whole-page retrieval purpose.

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?

It says where the id comes from (a search hit) and that a page short name can be supplied instead, which gives usable when-to-use context. But the sibling get_page is never mentioned, so an agent has no basis for choosing between fetch with a page slug and get_page — the one ambiguity that matters most here.

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