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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description goes well beyond them: it explains the response shape (values, subforms, files[]), that subform rows arrive inline (no extra call), that empty/missing subforms means no line items, and how files[] form_field distinguishes multiple attachments. With no output schema, this disclosure is exactly the value needed.

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 core action, then progressively details output structure and parameter provenance. It is dense and longer than typical, but every clause carries information the missing output schema requires; only minor redundancy with the schema caps it at 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, covering values, subforms, files, empty states, and id provenance. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 the schema already lists the udid sources, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful edge case ('falls nur answer_udid bekannt' → resolve_form_answer), giving the agent a recovery path the schema only hints at.

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+resource ('Eine gespeicherte Formular-Antwort ANSEHEN') and immediately specifies the payload ('alle gespeicherten Werte als JSON'). By tying field-key origin to show_formdef, it implicitly distinguishes itself from the formdef tool. An agent can identify this as the read-back tool 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 clear context ('Damit pruefst du nach dem Ausfuellen, ob deine Werte wirklich angekommen sind') and explains the resolve_form_answer fallback when only answer_udid is known. It lacks an explicit when-not statement or a contrast against resolve_form_answer as a retrieval alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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