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, fully covering the safety profile. The description repeats 'Rein lesend' and adds only that this is the standard display variant. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or error behavior, so beyond annotations it adds limited behavioral context.

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 sentence is front-loaded and states the action immediately, followed by alternatives and the ID source. The bilingual keyword tail ('| EN: report, chart, heatmap...') is search-oriented rather than invocation-focused and slightly dilutes the structure. Overall it is compact and readable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the source of report_id. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and return-value documentation is appropriately unnecessary here.

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 basic meaning of report_id is already documented as 'Report-ID'. The description adds valuable provenance beyond the schema: 'Die report_id liefert onto_report_index', telling the agent where to obtain the ID. It does not add format or syntax details, but the source hint is genuinely useful.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Einen Report ausfuehren und sein Ergebnis lesen (Standarddarstellung)' — execute a report and read its result in standard display. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming onto_report_json, onto_report_csv, onto_report_aggregate, and onto_report_index directly. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it is not for without opening any 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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Nutze es, um den Inhalt zu sehen' plus directional alternatives for machine processing, table export, and metrics. It also tells the agent where to get the required report_id from onto_report_index. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-to-use-alternative routing an agent needs.

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