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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Rein lesend' merely restates them. It adds no real behavioral context such as result ordering defaults, pagination limits, or what a search returns when nothing matches.

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?

The core guidance is front-loaded and compact, with the read-only note and sibling routing in three short sentences. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword list is filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

Annotations and a fully documented schema cover most needs, but with no output schema the description never indicates what results look like or how pagination behaves despite page/per_page parameters. It is adequate for selection but thin on call outcome.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics (q, page, per_page, modified_after, unbewertet, etc.). The description adds only the general notion of filtering by properties, so baseline 3 is 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 (search objects by field values / filter and text search over properties) and explicitly differentiates from onto_object_show and the scope-selection tool. An agent can distinguish it from siblings 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when you do NOT know the object's udid, as the entry point before onto_object_show, and use the scopes tool for pure scope selection. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named.

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