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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Rein lesend' largely restates them. The description adds that results are paged and that it is intended for overview/count use, but says nothing about return shape, paging limits, or what happens on an out-of-range page. Adequate against the annotation baseline, not rich.

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 safety, then the disambiguation rules, with no filler sentences. The trailing EN keyword list is functional MCP matching metadata rather than prose, so it does not seriously dilute the message.

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 2-parameter, zero-required list tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, safety and alternatives well. It omits the return shape (no output schema exists), which is the only notable gap for an agent needing to know what a page contains.

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%, so page and limit are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'seitenweise' and an 'optionalem Filter', but the schema exposes no filter parameter – a slightly misleading hint. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

State a specific verb and resource ('Alle Objekte auflisten') plus scope (seitenweise, optional filter) and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('fuer Uebersichten und Zaehlungen') and when not to, routing to onto_object_show when a udid is known ('billiger') and onto_object_search for full-text. 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.