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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Rein lesend'. Beyond that it discloses the return shape ('alle Properties und Interfaces'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning permissions, scope visibility or payload size limits.

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?

Purpose, precondition and the sibling-equivalence note come first and are all load-bearing. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword list adds no operational information and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns, when to use it, and which sibling to pick instead. Only secondary details such as missing-object error behavior are absent.

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% and the single udid parameter is documented as 32-hex in the schema itself. The description only adds the precondition that the udid must already be known, which is useful but not format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Ein einzelnes Objekt ueber seine udid vollstaendig lesen') plus the exact return scope ('alle Properties und Interfaces'). It also distinguishes itself from onto_object_search and onto_object_index by requiring a known udid, so an agent can select 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?

Gives explicit selection criteria: use it when the udid is already known, and fall back to onto_object_search or onto_object_index when it is not. It additionally names ontouser_object_show as returning an identical answer, which removes a genuine ambiguity for the agent.

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