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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' largely restates structured data. The description does add the content shape (type-to-preset mapping) and the safe pre-apply check framing, but says nothing about response size, pagination, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 operative German sentences are front-loaded and waste-free, but the appended '| EN: catalog, preset, template, apply, clear' block is keyword stuffing rather than agent-relevant guidance. That trailing barcode of terms adds no semantic value and dilutes otherwise tight prose.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description needs to convey what comes back, and it does (which types sit in which presets) plus when to call it. Missing only minor specifics like result format/pagination, which are low-risk here.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter behavior is left 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 specific verb+resource: reading the object type catalog and which types are bundled into which presets. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by name, pointing to onto_catalog_presets for the preset list and referencing the apply step. An agent can tell what this returns without opening any 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?

Explicitly instructs to use it to preview what a preset would contain BEFORE applying it, which is a concrete decision rule. It also names the alternative tool (onto_catalog_presets) for the adjacent need, so routing between the three onto_catalog_* tools is unambiguous.

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