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

"Rein lesend" largely restates the readOnlyHint=true annotation rather than adding new information, and the annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior with a closed-world scope. The description does add useful semantic context about what triggers represent (scheduled vs. event-driven automations) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size beyond what the schema already states.

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-loads the core action and the read-only constraint, then the usage cue and the sibling routing in a compact run of sentences. The trailing keyword block ("trigger, automation, rule, event, condition, effect") is retrieval scaffolding rather than instruction, but it is short and clearly delimited.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the action, the safety profile, the use case, and the sibling routing an agent needs to select it correctly. Only minor operational details (ordering, what a trigger record contains) are absent, and the absence of an output schema makes that a small gap.

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%: both `page` and `limit` are documented in the schema, including the 1..200 range and the notable session-wide persistence of `limit`. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 and resource ("Alle Trigger auflisten") and immediately qualifies the resource as time- or event-driven processes, so the agent knows exactly what is being listed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools onto_trigger_create/update and from onto_function_index, which is the key ambiguity in this namespace.

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 a concrete use case ("um zu sehen, welche Automatiken geplant sind und wann sie laufen") and routes the agent to alternatives for the adjacent operations: onto_trigger_create / onto_trigger_update for writes, onto_function_index for directly executable functions. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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