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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, the description reinforces and sharpens this by stating it is purely read-only and does not fetch external map data. It also discloses that ontouser_interface_map_markers returns an identical response, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place by covering read-only behavior, usage, and the geocode alternative. The trailing '| EN: onto, interface, map, markers' keyword padding is dead weight, and the identical-response sentence could arguably be tighter, but overall it is well structured.

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-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned (marker objects with coordinates), when to use it, and a fallback for missing coordinates. No output schema exists, and the description adequately describes the return content, leaving only minor gaps about response shape.

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% with both parameters documented, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description implies the 'interface' parameter through its phrasing but adds no syntax, format, or filtering details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Die Kartenmarker eines Interfaces abrufen') and clarifies what the returned markers are (objects with coordinates for map display). It also names related siblings, but since it says ontouser_interface_map_markers provides the identical response, it does not actually help an agent distinguish when to prefer this tool over that one.

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 says to use it for map views ('Nutze es fuer Karten-/Karten-Ansichten') and provides an alternative workflow for missing coordinates via onto_object_geocode. This gives clear positive guidance, though it stops short of stating when not to use the tool or how it differs from its identical-response sibling.

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