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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload shape (documents, inquiry answers, Urheber, related Drucksachen), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of describing failure or empty-result behavior.

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?

The purpose sentence comes first, followed by compact parameter hints in the same 'field: values' style. No filler, though the opening sentence is long and packs several distinct return elements together.

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 two required string params, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers both the input vocabulary and the returned content. Remaining gaps are minor: no error/not-found behavior and no statement that identifiers are scoped per parliament.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters and it largely does: it enumerates the accepted parlament values (bundestag, berlin, brandenburg, sachsen) and defines nummer's format as "Wahlperiode/Nummer" with the concrete example "21/8318". It does not explicitly state that the parliament list is exhaustive or address casing, keeping it from a 5.

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 resource (a Drucksache from parlamente.org) and specifies exactly what comes back: all documents, the answer for inquiries, authors, and related papers of the same Vorgang. It is clearly a direct fetch-by-identifier rather than a search, but it never names drucksachen_suchen as the contrasting search tool.

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 only implied: you need both a parliament and a Wahlperiode/Nummer, which signals a known-item lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus drucksachen_suchen, nor any note about what happens when the identifier does not exist.

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