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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' is largely redundant. The description earns credit for the routing behavior it discloses — that this tool does not geocode and that coordinate-less reports are a different tool's job — which is real context an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens when a report has no coordinates at all (empty result vs. error).

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 content is front-loaded in two short clauses and each sentence carries a distinct fact. The trailing English keyword dump ('report, chart, heatmap, map, dashboard, evaluation, export, statistics') is search-bait that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke, and the mixed German/English adds mild friction.

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-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and a rough indication of the return shape ('Punkte fuer die Kartendarstellung'). The only real gap is the edge case of a report containing no geocoded objects, which matters here because coordinate presence is the stated precondition.

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?

Only one parameter (report_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the identifier — no hint on how to obtain a report_id or whether it must reference a map-enabled report — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('geografischen Daten eines Reports abrufen') and immediately qualifies the output ('Punkte fuer die Kartendarstellung'), so the agent knows this returns map-ready coordinates rather than raw report data. It explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_report_aggregate and onto_object_geocode.

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 ('wenn der Report Objekte mit Koordinaten enthaelt') plus two routed alternatives with their own conditions: onto_object_geocode for missing coordinates and onto_report_aggregate for metrics instead of a map. 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.