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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces 'Rein lesend'. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the raw file output and the hard prerequisite of having a filetoken (without it the file is inaccessible). However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining content is relevant (prerequisites, source of identifiers, negative routing). The trailing '| EN: get, image' is slightly redundant but does not obscure 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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema description coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, usage conditions, identifier sources, output format ('Rohdatei'), and a clear alternative for the upload case.

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% and provides basic descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining that these identifiers live on objects/image repositories and how to retrieve them via sibling tools, which goes beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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') and resource ('Bild') and clarifies the output form ('als Rohdatei'). It also distinguishes itself from the upload sibling, so an agent can identify it 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('wenn du die beiden Kennungen hast'), where to obtain the required identifiers (onto_object_show or onto_file_structured), and names the alternative for uploading (upload_file_to_object). This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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