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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Rein lesend' merely restates that. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (Knoten + Kanten), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing graph depth, traversal limits, or how large link sets are handled.

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 return shape, then routing guidance — good ordering. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is search-bait that adds no decision-relevant information and costs a small amount of concision.

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 covers what is returned (nodes and edges), when to use it, and what to use instead. Only the shape/size of the returned graph at depth remains unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as a 32-hex object udid. The description adds no format or edge-case detail about the id 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 ('Ein Objekt samt seinen Verknuepfungen als Graph lesen (Knoten + Kanten)'), which tells the agent exactly what comes back. It explicitly separates itself from onto_object_show (field view) and onto_link_index (link definitions), so siblings are distinguishable without opening 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Nutze es fuer Beziehungsfragen – womit haengt X zusammen') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them (field view → onto_object_show, all link definitions → onto_link_index). Nothing is left to inference.

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