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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' is largely redundant. However, the description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: the read is complete (all properties and interfaces, not a summary), and a functionally identical sibling tool exists. It does not describe failure behavior for an unknown udid.

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 purpose and constraint, and each sentence carries routing value. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword tag is padding that does not help an agent decide or invoke, which keeps it out of the top 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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, alternatives and an equivalent tool, so an agent has what it needs. The only unaddressed area is error behavior when the udid does not resolve, which is minor here.

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% and the schema already documents udid as a 32-hex object identifier. The description only repeats that the lookup is by udid and that the udid must already be known, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: fully reading a single object by its udid, including all properties and interfaces. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (onto_object_search/onto_object_index for finding udids) and the near-duplicate (ontouser_object_show), so an agent can distinguish it 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 precondition (use it when you already have the udid) and routes the agent to alternatives when the precondition fails (without udid, use onto_object_search or onto_object_index first). It also tells the agent that ontouser_object_show returns an identical answer, which is exactly the routing information needed.

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