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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the file is not booked until someone clicks Beleg erfassen, it reaches no one, it can be deleted in the app so no confirmation is needed, and the process auto-runs recognition. It also discloses the required Cotlet API key scope, which annotations do not cover.

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 destination, and every sentence carries useful information. Minor redundancy: 'Zu prüfen' is introduced early ('It lands in "Zu prüfen"') and restated later, costing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the resulting state, reversibility, notification behavior, and auth requirement, and notes it returns the recognized fields. Slightly thin on exactly what return fields appear, but adequate overall.

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 the schema already documents file_url and file_name fully. The description only restates 'uploads one file' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond schema; 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 (Upload) and resource (supplier invoice / receipt file for bookkeeping), plus the scope detail of one file landing in "Zu prüfen". It is easily distinguished from siblings like lexware-office_list_receipts or get_document without opening any 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?

The workflow context (lands in 'Zu prüfen', not booked until Beleg erfassen) implies when this tool fits, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as recording payment or finalizing a document. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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