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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so 'Rein lesend' is redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data-completeness caveat that markers without coordinates are resolved by an admin via onto_object_geocode, and the equivalence to the admin-scoped sibling.

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 what is returned, then the read-only note, the sibling equivalence, and the geocode path — no filler sentences. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, ...' keyword block is search-oriented stuffing rather than prose, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers return content, safety, sibling routing, and the geocoding gap. The one loose end is that the schema marks 'interface' as optional while the description presumes an interface is supplied, so the omitted-parameter behavior is unaddressed.

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% for the single 'interface' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description restates the resource but adds no format, syntax, or default-behavior meaning — baseline 3 per the rule.

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 (retrieving an interface's map markers, i.e. objects with coordinates) and explicitly disambiguates from the near-identical sibling onto_interface_map_markers by saying it is the scope-user variant. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Tells the agent to use this one 'as a scope user' rather than the identical onto_interface_map_markers, which is clear routing. It also notes that missing coordinates must be filled by an administrator via onto_object_geocode, implying this tool cannot do that — though the when-not condition is implied rather than stated outright.

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