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

The read-only nature ("Rein lesend") merely restates the supplied readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations, so it earns no extra credit. The only additional substance is the intended inspection purpose, with no disclosure of result ordering, paging behavior at the end of the list, or what fields a trigger record contains. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 operational sentences are front-loaded and each one carries routing value (what it lists, why to call it, what to call instead). The trailing English keyword list ("trigger, automation, rule, event, condition, effect") is search-bait that does not help an agent decide or invoke, and the German/English mixing adds mild parsing 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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and alternatives sufficiently to call it correctly. What is missing — default ordering, whether an empty result is possible, and result shape — is minor given the annotations and complete parameter documentation.

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 schema already explains q, page, and limit, including the notable distinction that q is per-call while limit persists for the session. The description adds nothing about filtering syntax or paging strategy on top of that. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

"Alle Trigger auflisten (zeit- oder ereignisgesteuerte Ablaeufe)" gives a specific verb plus resource and disambiguates the domain term with a parenthetical. It explicitly separates itself from sibling tools: onto_trigger_create/update for writes and onto_function_index for immediately executable functions.

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 use case ("um zu sehen, welche Automatiken geplant sind und wann sie laufen") and routes the agent to concrete alternatives for creating/changing (onto_trigger_create / onto_trigger_update) and for a related but distinct concept (onto_function_index). Exclusions are explicit rather than implied.

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