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 fully covered. The description adds useful operational context about missing coordinates and admin geocoding, but largely repeats 'rein lesend' and does not describe return format or pagination behavior.

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?

Two front-loaded German sentences convey purpose, read-only nature, alternative tool, and coordinate handling. The trailing English keyword tag is compact and aids discovery, though it is less essential than the main content.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with rich annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, sibling choice, and the coordinate-gap workaround. Return values are not detailed, but there is no output schema and the name sufficiently implies marker objects with coordinates.

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 'name' and 'bbox' are documented, including that bbox is required and used for filtering. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('abrufen') and resource ('Kartenmarker eines Interfaces') in a self-service context, and explicitly identifies onto_interface_map_markers as the equivalent for another scope. An agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling 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?

Explicitly tells the scope user to choose this tool over onto_interface_map_markers, and points to onto_object_geocode for missing coordinates that an administrator must set. This covers both when to use it and the relevant alternative.

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