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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Rein lesend' is largely redundant. What it does add beyond structured data is genuinely useful: the exact fields surfaced (target, label, base URL, binding) and the guarantee that the secret is never returned — a security-relevant output constraint.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and dense with the resource, scope and returned fields. 'Rein lesend' duplicates the annotation and the appended EN keyword list ('connection, credential, vault, secret, integration, list') is search-oriented noise, but neither obscures the core message.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and confirming the secret is excluded. For a zero-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage, that is close to complete; only pagination or result-volume behavior is left unaddressed.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics that the description needs to compensate for. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description correctly implies the result set is implicitly filtered by the caller's profile rather than by arguments.

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 ('Alle Verbindungen ... auflisten') and scopes it to what the caller's own profile may see. It is clearly a read/list tool, distinguishable in kind from onto_connection_save, onto_connection_remove and onto_connection_check, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the permission scoping ('die das eigene Profil sehen darf'), which tells the agent results are already filtered by access rights. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over onto_connection_check or onto_connection_save, nor any note about empty results or refresh behavior.

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