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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('als Rohdatei') — raw file bytes rather than metadata — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of covering auth requirements or what happens on an invalid token.

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 core capability and the identifier prerequisite are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with exclusions following. The trailing '| EN: get, document' machine-generated tag is low-value noise and the bilingual phrasing adds slight friction, but overall there is little waste.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, sibling routing, and the raw-file return nature. The main residual gap is error/edge-case behavior for a bad slug or token, which is minor given how much structured data already exists.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates that the call is made 'ueber urlslug und filetoken'. It adds no format, provenance, or validation detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ein Dokument (PDF, Office-Datei) ... als Rohdatei abrufen') plus the exact lookup keys (urlslug, filetoken). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_image for images and upload_file_to_object for uploads, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Nutze es, wenn du die beiden Kennungen hast'), explicit alternatives for adjacent cases (get_image for images, upload_file_to_object for uploads), and it tells the agent where the identifiers come from (onto_object_show). That is the full when/when-not/where-from triad.

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