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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. 'Rein lesend' merely restates the readOnly annotation, and the description adds the useful framing that these are server-side automations but no pagination or return-shape context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded followed by routing guidance, and most sentences earn their place. The trailing keyword tag '| EN: function, automation, expression, script, effect' is search-oriented padding rather than functional information.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, usage and alternatives adequately. Since no output schema exists, return format/pagination behavior is left implicit, a minor omission.

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% (both page and limit documented with defaults and range), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the two parameters, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('auflisten') and resource ('Funktionen'), clarifies they are server-side automations, and explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_function_create/update and onto_trigger_index. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 routing: use it to find the name/udid for onto_function_run, use create/update for mutations, use onto_trigger_index for scheduled runs. This names both the purpose and the alternative tools for adjacent operations.

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