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 safety profile is covered; the description's 'Rein lesend' only restates it. It does add a genuinely new behavioral detail — the output is a semicolon-delimited CSV download — but says nothing about download mechanism, size limits or pagination.

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 format, then routing guidance, all in a few sentences. The trailing keyword list ('report, chart, heatmap, map, dashboard, evaluation, export, statistics') is retrieval padding rather than instruction and slightly dilutes the 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its output format, and which siblings to prefer. Missing details about how the download is delivered and any result limits are minor but prevent a 5.

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% but the schema only says 'Report-ID'; the description adds where that ID comes from (onto_report_index), which is real provenance guidance beyond the schema. With a single, fully documented parameter this is a solid contribution.

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: execute a report as a CSV download, with the format qualifier (semicolon-separated) and read-only nature. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling report tools (onto_report_json, onto_report_show), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 ('fuer Exporte und Tabellenkalkulation') and when-to-use-alternatives: onto_report_json for code further-processing, onto_report_show for display. It also names the source of the required report_id (onto_report_index), removing the main ambiguity.

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