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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Rein lesend" adds little. However, the description surfaces an output-behavior trait not covered by any structured field and not backed by an output schema: that the result is raw machine-readable data intended for downstream processing, which materially shapes how an agent should use the result.

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 German body is front-loaded and dense: purpose, read-only guarantee, usage condition, parameter note, and three sibling routes in four short sentences with no filler. The trailing EN keyword block is search-oriented metadata rather than instruction, which is minor padding but not disruptive.

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 read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety, usage routing, and parameter passing adequately. The only real gap is the structure of the nested "filters" object, whose properties are undefined in both the schema and the description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount for the nested "filters" parameter by stating it is passed as an object, but it does not enumerate accepted filter keys or format, leaving the undocumented nested object's internal structure entirely to inference.

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 ("Einen Report als JSON ausfuehren") plus the nature of the output ("maschinenlesbare Rohdaten"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_report_show, onto_report_csv, and onto_report_aggregate, so an agent can select it without opening sibling 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 an explicit use condition ("Nutze es, wenn du die Ergebnisse weiterverarbeiten willst") and routes the agent to the correct alternative for each other need: display (onto_report_show), tables (onto_report_csv), sums (onto_report_aggregate). When-to-use and 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.