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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and 'Rein lesend' merely restates that. The description does add some behavioral context (result sets are paginated, useful for overviews and counts), but discloses nothing about return shape, total counts, or limits beyond what the schema states. Adequate but thin against an annotation set that already covers safety.

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, then the routing advice, so the most important content comes first. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is noise rather than definition and slightly bloats an otherwise tight entry.

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-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and routing well enough to invoke it. The gap is the phantom 'Filter' mention, which is unresolved by schema or annotations, and no hint about result shape or pagination limits beyond the schema's default.

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%, so page/limit are fully documented in the schema and the description needn't repeat them. However, the description advertises 'nach optionalem Filter', a filtering capability that no parameter in the schema exposes, which can send the agent hunting for a filter argument that does not exist. Slightly below the coverage-based baseline because of this inaccurate hint.

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 Objekte auflisten') plus scope modifiers (paginated, optional filter), so the agent immediately knows this is a list/overview endpoint. It explicitly differentiates itself by naming the two closest siblings, onto_object_show and onto_object_search, and the condition that picks each.

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 explicit when-to-use ('fuer Uebersichten und Zaehlungen') and when-not-to-use routing: use onto_object_show when you already know a udid (and notes it is cheaper), and onto_object_search for full-text search across multiple fields. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance that makes sibling selection unambiguous.

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