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' largely restates structured data. The description does add the return shape (nodes + edges), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits traversal depth, size limits, and pagination behavior for what is effectively a graph read.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose first and routing second; no wasted clauses. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword line is retrieval padding rather than agent-facing guidance, which slightly dilutes the structure.

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-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape (Knoten + Kanten), and sibling routing, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is traversal scope (depth or result caps), a minor omission given the annotation-declared safe read 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 (id) with 100% schema description coverage ('Objekt-udid (32-hex)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about id format or what happens on an unknown id, leaving the baseline of 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 and resource ('Ein Objekt samt seinen Verknuepfungen als Graph lesen (Knoten + Kanten)') and immediately differentiates itself from the two nearest siblings, onto_object_show and onto_link_index. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('fuer Beziehungsfragen') plus explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions: onto_object_show for a pure field view, onto_link_index for all link definitions. 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.