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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: results are limited to cards you may maintain, cards render in a separate 'Startkarten fürs Team' panel for everyone who can read the scope, and there are deliberately no per-role variations — useful context for interpreting the output.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and the returned fields are grouped compactly, but the closing rationale about roles and building a view with your own access gate is design commentary that an invoking agent does not strictly need. The mixed German/English phrasing also adds scanning cost.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description lists the returned fields for startcards and interfaces and explains the scope id->name mapping, which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise have to discover. With no parameters and read-only annotations, that covers everything needed 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by documenting the shape of the returned records instead.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Teamweite Startkarten auflisten") plus an explicit scope restriction ("die DU pflegen darfst"). It also enumerates the three returned collections (startcards, interfaces, scopes) and contrasts itself with onto_favorite_*, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

The description explicitly routes the agent: "Unterschied zu onto_favorite_*: Favoriten sind persoenlich, Startkarten sind Team-Konfiguration" gives a clear alternative and the condition separating them. It does not, however, point to the write-side siblings (onto_startcard_save/move/delete) for an agent that actually wants to modify a card, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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