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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates 'Rein lesend'. It adds no new behavioral context such as auth/permission needs, error cases, or response shape — contextual details that exist only in the schema, not here.

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-loads the purpose and keeps the operational guidance tight in one flowing passage. The trailing 'EN: file, image, document, attachment, upload' is retrieval-oriented keyword padding rather than useful prose, but it is short enough not to obscure the core content.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers retrieval scope, the routing alternative, and the related category tool. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though return/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 single object_id parameter is richly documented in the schema itself (32-hex format, what it returns, and how it relates to scope category definitions). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Eine Datei aus der strukturierten Ablage abrufen') plus the scope of what is returned (Metadaten und/oder Inhalt). It differentiates from the write sibling upload_file_to_object, though it does not distinguish itself from other read siblings like get_document or get_image.

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 an explicit usage condition ('Nutze es, wenn du die Datei ueber ihre Kennung kennst') and names the alternative for the opposite operation ('Einen Upload machst du mit upload_file_to_object'), plus a pointer to onto_scope_structuredimage_categories for categories. No explicit when-not guidance, but the routing is clear.

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