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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by listing the exact return payload (id, title, text, url, metadata with original_url, Quelle, Fundstelle, Stand). The bracketed note that it returns only original data from official sources with no AI synthesis is a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences: the action and id source come first, the return payload second, with the no-AI caveat bracketed at the end so it does not obstruct the main instruction. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call this versus a search. Remaining minor gaps are error behavior for invalid ids and any differentiation from the other source-retrieval siblings.

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 gives the accepted id formats (including the '[[beleg:...]]' Beleg-ID variant), so the description's mention of the id adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work for the single parameter.

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 ('Öffnet einen Treffer aus search über seine id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a single-record detail fetch tied to search results. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the `search` sibling by taking an id rather than query terms, but it never addresses how it differs from similar retrieval siblings such as `get_beleg`.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'aus search' tells the agent the id originates from a search hit, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the id is unknown, and no named alternative for retrieving a source by other means.

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