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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' mostly restates structured data. What the description does add is the output nature (raw machine-readable JSON), but it says nothing about pagination, row limits, error behavior or what happens with invalid filter keys.

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 is front-loaded: purpose, read-only note, when-to-use, filter format, then alternatives — efficiently ordered. The trailing '| EN: report, chart, heatmap, map, dashboard...' keyword block is routing filler that adds little for an agent that already knows the tool name.

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?

With only 2 parameters, high schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (raw JSON), how filters are passed, and how it differs from its report siblings. The unelaborated nested 'filters' object is the one remaining gap.

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 the schema already types filters as an object and report_id as an integer, so the schema does the work. 'Filter uebergibst du als Objekt' merely restates the declared type and gives no hint about which filter keys are accepted for a nested object.

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: run a report as JSON, with the parenthetical '(maschinenlesbare Rohdaten)' clarifying the output form. It immediately distinguishes itself from the report siblings by naming onto_report_show, onto_report_csv and onto_report_aggregate.

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 selection rule: use this when you want to post-process results, use onto_report_show for pure display, onto_report_csv for tables and onto_report_aggregate for totals. Conditions and alternatives are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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