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

Annotations already declare readOnly/strictly safe behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: visibility is fail-closed to the caller's scopes, and it enumerates the returned fields (udid, title, field count, per-field key/label/widget/required). Pagination and error behavior are not mentioned, keeping it slightly below a 5.

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 German description is reasonably front-loaded but includes redundant visibility statements ('die fuer dich sichtbar sind' then 'Sichtbar sind nur Formulare in deinen Scopes') and an unnecessary English tag '| EN: list, formdefs' that adds no value. It could be tightened without loss.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, next-step usage, visibility constraint, and returned field contents. Minor omissions like pagination or empty-result behavior prevent a 5.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries no burden. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion; baseline 4 applies with no additional semantics needed.

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 ('Liste aller Formulare (formdefs)') and summarizes the returned fields. It names show_formdef as the next step, but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling onto_formdef_list_templates, so it falls short of perfect sibling differentiation.

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 positions the tool as the 'ERSTER SCHRITT' for choosing a form and explains that the udid is used with show_formdef. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-listing guidance is given, but usage context is clear.

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