texterkennung

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses exactly what is created (new text file with D-Kennung, source reference, header with checksum, program, language, date, warning), where it lands (07 Recherche/Texterkennung), that the original is never modified or overwritten, and that a text-status marker is set on the original. It also warns that OCR output is a derivation whose numbers, dates, deadlines and amounts must be verified at the original.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the critical mutation warning ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') and then flows through preconditions, side effects, and verification caveats. Lengthy, but nearly every 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, confirmation gate, artifacts produced, original-file preservation, and downstream verification duties. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for bestaetigt (an explicit user-confirmation gate) and for dokument (must be a photo or text-layer-less PDF), though it never explains the fall 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: performs OCR on a photo or text-layer-less PDF via tesseract, and writes the result into the case file as a new text file. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dokument_text (which reads existing text) by requiring a document *without* a text layer.

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?

Clearly states the precondition for use (photo or PDF without a text layer) and the hard gate: only with bestaetigt=true after asking the user. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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