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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; "Rein lesend" merely restates it. The description does add useful context by explaining how the returned keys feed into onto_object_execute_action and what the definitions gate, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then read-only status, usage condition, and alternatives in a logical flow. The trailing EN keyword list is slightly noisy but serves discovery and does not bury the key information.

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 full annotation coverage and a documented schema, the description is essentially complete; it even describes the conceptual return (which buttons on which objects). No output schema exists, but none is needed for a simple list.

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, limit fully documented in German), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about pagination or limits, which is acceptable given the baseline for full coverage.

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 ("Action-Definitionen") and clarifies what they represent ("welche Buttons an welchen Objekten erscheinen"). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling onto_actiondef_save for create/modify.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ("wenn du wissen willst, welche Aktion du auf einem Objekt ausfuehren kannst") and routes the agent to two named alternatives: onto_object_execute_action (to consume the key) and onto_actiondef_save (for create/modify).

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