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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description's 'Rein lesend' largely restates them. It does add genuine value by disclosing the returned change types (created/changed/deleted) and the cursor-based incremental semantics. It does not describe pagination or behavior at the limit boundary, a minor gap.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first sentences, which is good structure. The trailing '| EN: changes, audit, feed...' keyword block is padding but short and serves discovery, so only mild deduction.

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 watch/sync tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies enough: scope of returned changes, incremental-sync use, cursor workflow, and alternative tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated but not fully, since event shape is unstated.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (limit, since, action, scope_id). The description reinforces the cursor concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (abholen/fetch) and resource (Änderungen seit einem Cursor) and even spells out what the change types are (angelegt/geaendert/geloescht). It explicitly names a sibling (onto_object_index) that it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (inkrementelle Synchronisation) and when-not (Übersichten — use onto_object_index instead, noting it is cheaper and complete). It also routes to onto_watch_cursor for the starting state, leaving nothing to inference.

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