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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the returned payload (decision date, legal/subject area, headnote, norms cited, plus text) and the paging mechanism (text_offset / text_has_more / text_next_offset), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 identifier rules, then return contents and paging. Three dense sentences with no filler; slightly long but each clause carries operative information.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately (fields returned, paging trio). It is thin on failure modes (unknown Geschäftszahl, missing court, non-German content) but nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: which identifiers embed the court and which require it, and that paging is character-offset based on long decision text. Court enum values are listed in the schema but the description reinforces their conditional requirement.

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 (get) and a precisely scoped resource: the original-language German full text of ONE Austrian court decision. It names three accepted identifiers and the exact source (RIS, Judikatur), which clearly separates it from the sibling at_search_case_law that produces document_ids.

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 explicit routing rules per identifier: ECLI and document_id resolve the court automatically, while 'a bare geschaeftszahl needs court passed explicitly'. It also points to at_search_case_law as the origin of document_id, implying the search-then-fetch workflow, but never states when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. bulk retrieval or full-text search).

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