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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered; 'Rein lesend' merely reinforces it. The description adds genuine value by describing the payload (fields, grouping, visibility) and disclosing that ontouser_interface_show produces the same answer, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core action and scoping, and each sentence carries routing information. The trailing '| EN: onto, interface, show' keyword block is search boilerplate rather than prose but is short and harmless.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what is fetched and which sibling to fall back on. The absence of any return-shape detail beyond the listed sub-fields is a minor gap given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning ('Interface-Name'). The description only indirectly signals the name dependency via 'wenn der Name bekannt ist' and adds no format or syntax detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Ein einzelnes Interface vollstaendig lesen') and even enumerates the returned content (enthaltene Felder, Gruppierung, Sichtbarkeit). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling onto_interface_index (no-name case) and notes ontouser_interface_show returns an identical response.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Nutze es, wenn der Name bekannt ist') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('Ohne Namen: onto_interface_index'). It even resolves the redundancy with ontouser_interface_show by stating the responses are identical.

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