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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so 'rein lesend' is largely redundant. The description does add usable behavioral context beyond the structured data: what a template result contains (buttons/template_file) and the correct next-tool workflow. No pagination or return-format disclosure keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with the core listing statement and the alternatives, and the English keyword tail aids search. The full German text is duplicated in intent by the bilingual tail and 'rein lesend' repeats the annotations, adding some length without new meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers scope, next-step workflow, and result content, which is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool. It stops short of describing ordering, limits, or result shape, so not quite a 5.

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?

Only one optional param (q) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or matching semantics for q, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'list templates: visible forms in PUBLIC scope'. The PUBLIC-scope qualifier and the explicit mentions of onto_formdef_show and onto_formdef_create distinguish it from siblings an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicit when/how-to-use: take the udid to onto_formdef_create + from_udid to build a company-specific copy, or use onto_formdef_show for the full view. It also asserts templates are the easiest route to a functioning template with buttons/template_file — clear routing with named alternatives.

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