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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so "Rein lesend" is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: results are permission-filtered to the caller's released reports, which an agent could not infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing result count or ordering, so not a 5.

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 routing information is front-loaded in three short sentences. The trailing "| EN: report, chart, heatmap, map, ..." keyword block is search-oriented stuffing rather than guidance, which slightly 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, entry-point role, permission scope, and where the payload actually comes from. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, total count), so it is essentially complete.

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% — page and limit are already documented in the schema, including the 1..200 range and session-scoped semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 ("auflisten") plus resource ("Reports") and even scopes it: only reports released to the caller. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling output tools (onto_report_show/json/csv/aggregate) that actually deliver the data.

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 says to use it as the entry point to find the report_id needed by the output tools, and names which siblings return the actual content. When-to-use and alternatives are both stated, nothing is left to inference.

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