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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' largely restates structured data. The description does add that these are server-side automations rather than user scripts, but says nothing about ordering, page-size session stickiness, or what a returned entry looks like.

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-loads what the tool does, then the routing guidance, then the mutating/trigger alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. The bilingual EN keyword suffix is mildly redundant but serves search relevance, so it is not penalized heavily.

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 should signal what the list yields; it does so by indicating name/udid are retrievable. Combined with the safety annotations and fully documented paging params, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though return-field detail is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (page, limit, including the 1..200 range and session-scoped default) are documented in the schema. The description adds no paging guidance of its own, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Alle hinterlegten Funktionen auflisten (serverseitige Automatiken)'), and the EN keyword tail (function, automation, expression, script, effect) disambiguates vocabulary. An agent can distinguish this from onto_function_run/create/update without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up use case ('Nutze es, um den Namen/die udid fuer onto_function_run zu finden') and routes the other operations to their siblings: create/update for mutation, onto_trigger_index for time-based jobs. This is a full when/when-not/alternatives map.

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