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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive). It discloses the fail-closed scope rule and the crucial count semantics ('count kleiner als objects heisst nicht sichtbar, nicht kein Wert da'), plus a performance benchmark (1000 objects in 56 ms) and UTC ISO-8601 timestamp behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot provide.

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 purpose and scope, and every clause is substantive (params, benchmark, response shape, visibility rule, time format). It is dense and slightly congested by mixing German prose with an English keyword tail, but little is padding.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by spelling out the response object shape ({count, values[{...}]}) and the notable visibility/fail-closed behavior. Time format and read-only nature are also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it clarifies objects are object-udids capped at 1000 and that series is a list allowing several series to be fetched at once, reinforcing the schema's intent beyond raw field types.

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: 'AKTUELLE Werte mehrerer Zeitreihen in EINEM Aufruf' (current values of multiple time series in one call), including the bulk nature emphasized by 'EINEM Aufruf'. It clearly implies a distinct role vs cursor/range access, and the English tail ('time series, history, trend...') aids retrieval. It does not explicitly name the sibling onto_series_range, so differentiation from it is left implicit.

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 concrete when-to-use scenarios ('Listen, Karten und Fahrzeugflotten – wo stehen alle Fahrzeuge jetzt'), which selects the right contexts well. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. onto_series_range for historical windows), so routing between the two series tools still relies on inference.

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