elster_submission_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the artifact contents (Transferticket, server receipt time, full content incl. attachment names) and the default destination folder. However, "Read-only" is ambiguous for a tool that writes files to disk — it never states whether existing files are overwritten or how they are named, which is the side effect an agent most needs to know.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and output format before selection mechanics. The parenthetical clause listing receipt fields is packed but each element is informative; no sentence is wasted.

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 correctly describes the produced artifacts and their default location, which is what an agent needs to know. The remaining gap is file naming and overwrite/collision behavior on repeat calls, which matters for a tool that persists files.

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 60%, and the description compensates for the undocumented parameters by giving the default limit of 1, the newest-first ordering for years, and the default dir of <downloadDir>/nachweise. It repeats the nachrichtId provenance already in the schema, so it is additive rather than fully compensating.

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?

"Saves the Übertragungsprotokoll of submitted forms as HTML and PDF" states a concrete verb, resource, and output format, plus the reason ("as proof of what was sent"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings elster_submissions_list (listing) and elster_submission_protocol (protocol retrieval).

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?

It explains the two selection paths — by nachrichtId sourced from elster_submissions_list, or by formFilter/years — and notes ordering and the default limit, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer one path over the other or when not to use this tool at all.

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