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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing on top: no behavior for an unknown/nonexistent id, no indication of what the returned object contains, no notes on permissions. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes no behavioral context.

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?

A single seven-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler. Brevity here is appropriate, though the space saved is not used for any useful qualification.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. An agent still lacks error behavior for missing ids and any hint of the returned record's shape.

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 id property already documents its type, format, and origin ('from papierkram_list_bank_transactions'). The description only repeats 'by id', adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 concrete verb+resource ('Get one bank transaction') and the lookup key ('by id'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling papierkram_list_bank_transactions. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as papierkram_list_bank_transactions. Retrieval of a single known record is only implied by the phrase 'one ... by id'.

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