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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' largely repeats structured data. The genuine addition is the note that missing coordinates are filled by onto_object_geocode, clarifying what this tool does NOT do. It still says nothing about return format or pagination, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is fair.

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 purpose and reads efficiently in a few short sentences. The trailing 'EN: report, chart, heatmap, map, dashboard, evaluation, export, statistics' keyword block is search-oriented filler that adds little for an agent, slightly diluting conciseness.

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-required-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, usage condition, and alternatives. It hints at the return ('Punkte fuer die Kartendarstellung') but does not describe structure or pagination, leaving a minor 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?

Single parameter (report_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for report_id. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema is fully covered.

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+resource ('geografischen Daten eines Reports abrufen') and immediately scopes it to map points ('Punkte fuer die Kartendarstellung'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming onto_report_aggregate for metrics and onto_object_geocode for coordinate gaps, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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 gives the when: 'Nutze es, wenn der Report Objekte mit Koordinaten enthaelt.' It also routes to alternatives for adjacent cases — onto_object_geocode when coordinates are missing, onto_report_aggregate when aggregated metrics are wanted instead of a map. Clear when-to-use and alternative-selection guidance.

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