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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' adds no information beyond structured data. The one genuinely useful behavioral note — that scope_id requires can_manage_scope=1 and that results contain only email, rights and sp_id — lives in the schema, not the description. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries only modest extra context.

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 core content is two tight sentences with the action and read-only nature front-loaded, followed by compact alternative routing. The trailing '| EN: member, participant, membership, team' keyword list is slight padding for a human reader, though it aids retrieval matching.

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 two-parameter filtered list with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety, and all three adjacent operations, and the schema fills in the authorization requirement and the narrow return payload. Pagination behavior (20 per page) is documented in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%: page (20 per page, default 1) and scope_id (requires can_manage_scope=1, returns only email/rights/sp_id) are both fully documented in the schema. The description itself says nothing about either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (auflisten) and resource (Mitglieder eines eigenen Bereiches) with an explicit scope qualifier ('eigenen'), and adds English synonyms (member, participant, membership, team) that disambiguate the concept. An agent can distinguish it from scope-level siblings like ontouser_scope_index without opening a schema.

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?

Names three concrete alternatives with their triggering conditions: toggle_member_flag for rights changes, remove_member for removal, create_invite_code for inviting. It also gives a positive usage motive ('Ist-Stand vor Aenderungen sehen'), so both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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