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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a safe read. It adds the partner-scoped dataset and optional filtering behavior, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or edge-case 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?

A single bilingual sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the English equivalent is compact and useful rather than redundant.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description conveys the core purpose and main filter options. However, with seven parameters and no output schema, it omits the since filter, pagination behavior, the reasoning parameter's purpose, and any description of the return 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 only 43%, with limit, since, and offset documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for otherwise undocumented filter parameters by mapping 'Suchbegriff' to searchQuery, 'Kategorie' to kategorieFilter, and 'Tag' to tagFilter. However, the reasoning parameter remains completely unexplained.

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 clear verb ('Listet') and resource ('Mandanten des Partners'), plus optional filters by search term, category, or tag. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling mandant_search, so the agent must infer the list-versus-search boundary.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mandant_search or mandant_get. The description restates the operation and optional filters, but it never says when this is the right choice or when it is not.

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