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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Rein lesend' restates that rather than adding to it. It does add non-obvious context: that report_id must be sourced from onto_report_index, and that the output is a human-facing 'Standarddarstellung' as opposed to machine-readable. It does not describe what the rendered result actually contains.

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 substantive content (purpose, read-only, routing to three alternatives, id provenance) is front-loaded in tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: report, chart, heatmap, ...' tag block is a search-keyword dump that adds little for an agent that already read the German text, though it is compact and clearly demarcated.

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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers everything needed to select and call it, including ID sourcing and sibling routing. The only gap is that 'Standarddarstellung' is never unpacked — an agent cannot say what fields or media the result contains.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by explaining the provenance of report_id ('Die report_id liefert onto_report_index'), which the schema does not say.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Einen Report ausfuehren und sein Ergebnis lesen') plus the rendering mode ('Standarddarstellung'), which immediately separates it from the JSON/CSV/aggregate variants. Sibling tools are named explicitly, so an agent can route without opening 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?

It states the positive case ('Nutze es, um den Inhalt zu sehen') and then gives explicit when-to-use-else rules for three named alternatives: onto_report_json for machine processing, onto_report_csv for table export, onto_report_aggregate for key figures. It also says where to obtain the report_id (onto_report_index).

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