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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Rein lesend' merely restates that. The genuinely additive content is workflow-related (the returned key feeds onto_object_execute_action) rather than behavioral – nothing about result ordering, pagination semantics, or what fields a definition contains beyond the button metaphor.

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 purpose, read-only note, usage trigger and alternatives are front-loaded and compact. The trailing bilingual keyword block ('| EN: action, button, definition, gate, condition, rule') is somewhat extraneous but short and clearly demarcated as a search tag line.

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 only two optional paging parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies everything needed to decide and call correctly: what is listed, that it is a read, and how the result is used. Only the shape of returned entries is left implicit.

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%, so both 'page' and 'limit' are already documented, including the session-wide scope of limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 and resource ('die nutzbaren Action-Definitionen auflisten') and immediately clarifies the domain meaning ('welche Buttons an welchen Objekten erscheinen'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools onto_actiondef_save (create/modify) and onto_object_execute_action (consumes the key), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Nutze es, wenn du wissen willst, welche Aktion du auf einem Objekt ausfuehren kannst'. It names the downstream consumer ('den key uebergibst du an onto_object_execute_action') and the alternative for mutation ('Anlegen/Aendern: onto_actiondef_save'), covering both routing decisions.

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