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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'Rein lesend' mostly restates what the agent already knows. The description adds real value by clarifying the tool returns identifiers rather than report content, which shapes expectations of the response, but it discloses nothing about the session-persistent 'limit' quirk or pagination behavior noted in the schema.

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 and routing are front-loaded well, but 'Rein lesend' duplicates the annotations and the trailing '| EN: report, chart, heatmap...' keyword list is retrieval-stuffing rather than information for the caller. Still compact overall, but a sentence or two does not earn its place.

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 simple index tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only nature and where the actual data lives. Only the session-persistence detail of 'limit' is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 both page/limit are documented there, including the non-obvious session-persistence behavior of limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 ('Alle Reports auflisten') plus scope ('die fuer dich freigegeben sind'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also contrasts itself with the output tools, making it unmistakable which sibling belongs to which task.

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?

Explicitly designates itself as the entry point ('Nutze es als Einstieg') for obtaining the report_id, and names the four alternative tools (onto_report_show/json/csv/aggregate) that deliver the actual data. When-to-use and the alternatives are both spelled out.

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