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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats 'Rein lesend' and adds usage context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. With annotations covering 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and related tools. It is appropriately sized, though the 'Rein lesend' phrase duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and the trailing English keyword list is a minor structural add-on.

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 simple, zero-parameter listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage entry point, and sibling routing. It does not describe the return shape, but the reference to onto_catalog_index for preset contents partially compensates.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rules, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Die verfuegbaren Objekttyp-Presets auflisten') and clarifies what presets are ('vorbereitete Typ-Buendel zur Auswahl'). It explicitly names sibling tools (onto_catalog_apply, onto_catalog_index), making it easy to distinguish from related catalog operations.

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?

It gives an explicit entry-point condition ('Nutze es als Einstieg, wenn ein Scope mit Standardtypen ausgestattet werden soll') and routes the agent to specific alternatives for applying (onto_catalog_apply) and inspecting a preset (onto_catalog_index). No inference is required.

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