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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so 'Rein lesend' is partly redundant, but the description adds non-annotation context: the response is a raw binary file (Rohdatei) rather than JSON, and the tokens must be sourced from onto_object_show. It says nothing about size limits, auth, or failure on a bad token, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return form, then usage routing, all in a few tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: get, document' machine tag adds little for an agent but is not wasteful enough to drop below 4.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of saying the return is a raw file, and it covers both the positive path and the two main confusions (images, uploads). Minor gaps remain around invalid/expired tokens and any size behavior.

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 100%, so the terse schema descriptions ('URL slug for the file', 'File token') set the baseline at 3. The description goes beyond it by naming the provenance of both identifiers (the object from onto_object_show) and by confirming both are required identifiers rather than optional filters.

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 (abrufen/get) and resource (Dokument als PDF/Office-Rohdatei), plus the exact two keys required to address it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_image and upload_file_to_object, so an agent can identify it among the ~100 siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives affirmative use context ('Nutze es, wenn du die beiden Kennungen hast'), an exclusion ('Nicht zum Hochladen: dafuer upload_file_to_object'), a redirect for a different media type ('Fuer Bilder gibt es get_image'), and even tells the agent where to obtain the two tokens (onto_object_show). That is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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