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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' mostly restates structured data. What the description does add beyond annotations is that results are PUBLIC-scope only and that templates typically carry buttons/template_file, but nothing about result size, ordering, or whether non-public definitions are excluded silently.

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 useful content (scope, read-only, routing to create/show) is front-loaded and clear, but the trailing bilingual keyword block ('| EN: form, form definition, fields, template, PDF, submission') is pure keyword stuffing that consumes space without informing an agent's decision.

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 usefully tells the agent what it gets back (visible PUBLIC templates usable via udid, including buttons/template_file) and what to do next. For a single-optional-parameter list tool with full annotations, this is close to sufficient, though the relationship to list_formdefs remains unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter q is already documented as a title/name search term. The description never mentions the search parameter or its matching semantics, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('VORLAGEN auflisten: sichtbare Formulare im PUBLIC-Scope') and pins the scope to generic PUBLIC templates with the udid as the usable identifier. It differentiates itself from onto_formdef_create and onto_formdef_show by naming them, though it silently ignores the very similar sibling list_formdefs, which an agent might 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?

It gives concrete next-step routing: take the udid to onto_formdef_create + from_udid to build a company-specific copy, or onto_formdef_show to inspect fully, and it recommends PUBLIC templates as the easiest starting point because they ship with buttons/template_file. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, and the overlap with list_formdefs is left unresolved.

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