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

"Rein lesend" simply restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding new information. The definition of what an interface is adds conceptual value, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or the session-scoped limit rule that the schema hints at. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 core content is front-loaded in three short sentences with no wasted clauses, and the alternative tool is placed last where it belongs. The trailing "| EN: onto, interface, index" keyword tag adds no semantic value and slightly dilutes the ending.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema means a brief note on what the listing returns would have closed the remaining gap.

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 are documented in the schema, including the notable session-scoped limit behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, 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 Interfaces auflisten") and immediately defines the domain concept ("Sichten/Masken, die festlegen, welche Felder ein Objekt zeigt"), so an agent unfamiliar with the term knows what an interface is. It also names the sibling it is not ("Ein einzelnes Interface: onto_interface_show"), making disambiguation immediate.

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 states the use case: find the interface name needed for onto_object_create or for display. It also routes to the alternative tool onto_interface_show for single-record retrieval, so both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use are covered.

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