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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the 'Read-only' restatement earns no credit. However the description goes beyond them meaningfully: it discloses truncation behavior and the clamp range (1000-120000, default 40000) and notes the response carries the filing's Stichtag for citation. Return-shape specifics are largely left to the output schema.

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 one-line purpose, then uses compact labeled parameter and return sections. Every sentence carries actionable information (scope, prerequisite, default, clamp range); no filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: jurisdictional scope, key discovery path, sibling disambiguation, truncation knobs, and citation context. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden and it does: doc_key is tied to its source field (document_ref from list_documents) and its Austrian-filing meaning, while max_chars gets default, optionality, and the enforced clamp bounds that appear nowhere in the schema.

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 (extract text) and resource (ONE Austrian filing document) scoped by document key, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document by jurisdiction (Germany abstract) and from list_documents (key discovery). An agent can route correctly 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?

Gives the prerequisite workflow ('Use list_documents to discover the key') and names the alternative tool with its selecting condition ('for the German official register abstract use get_document'). Also constrains applicability with 'Austria only today', so when-not-to-use is covered.

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