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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that triggers are queued and processed on 60 s / 5 min cycles, explaining why results may be stale and discouraging duplicate writes. It does not add anything about the shape or freshness of the returned data beyond the category list.

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 most useful information is front-loaded (what the status contains) followed by the queue timing that explains why the tool matters. It is slightly padded by 'Genau deshalb ist dieses Werkzeug da' and by the bilingual split, where the English portion is only a keyword tag rather than full explanatory text.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries exactly the burden it must: what it reports, why results lag, and when to call it instead of retrying. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline applies and no parameter meaning is needed. The description correctly presents the tool as unfiltered/global, but adds no additional parameter-level detail because there is none to add.

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 names a specific resource and scope: backlog and health of the automation, listing what it surfaces (open events, errors, last runs). The EN keyword tail ('automation queue, trigger status, backlog, last runs') reinforces this. It is somewhat abstract in the German framing ('Rueckstand und Gesundheit der Automatik'), but an agent can tell it apart from the onto_trigger_create/update/delete/index siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: check here after creating or changing a rule rather than repeating the action or blocking on a result. It also supplies the when-not rationale ('instead of repeating the action or waiting'), which is precisely the routing decision an agent gets wrong with asynchronous triggers.

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