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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' adds no new information. The description's extra value is only the pointer to the create/update siblings; nothing is said about ordering, pagination behavior, or the size of the definition list beyond what the schema already documents.

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, read-only note, and sibling routing come first in three tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: link, relation, edge, connection, graph' keyword list is retrieval-oriented padding that does not help an agent already reading the description, costing it a point.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, safety, and sibling routing. It omits any hint of what fields a link definition entry contains, which would help when chaining into onto_object_create_link, but that is a minor 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%, with page and limit both described in-schema (including the 1..200 range and the session-scoped limit). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 ('Alle Link-Definitionen auflisten') and immediately disambiguates the domain concept with the parenthetical '(welche Beziehungen es zwischen Objekttypen gibt)'. It is clearly distinguishable from onto_object_create_link and the link_def mutation siblings.

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 downstream use case ('Nutze es, um den fuer onto_object_create_link noetigen Link-Typ zu finden') and routes the mutation cases to onto_link_create_def / onto_link_update_def. Both when-to-use and which-alternative-for-writes are covered.

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