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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' merely restates structured data. The description adds the useful ordering context (entry before onto_object_show), but says nothing about result format, pagination behavior, or match semantics beyond what the schema fields imply.

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 usage guidance, and every core sentence earns its place. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is SEO filler that adds little for an agent, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 read-only, fully-documented search tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and read-only nature adequately. Minor gaps around pagination/result behavior are already handled by the documented page/per_page fields.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter/Textsuche ueber Properties' loosely implies the q/type/linktype filtering intent but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Objekte ueber ihre Feldwerte suchen' / filter/text search over properties) and explicitly differentiates from siblings onto_object_show and onto_object_search_scopes. An agent can identify this as the entry-point search 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('wenn du Objekte NICHT ueber die udid kennst') plus two named alternatives with their selecting conditions (onto_object_show for known udids, onto_object_search_scopes for pure scope selection). Routing is unambiguous.

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