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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Rein lesend' is largely redundant. It does add useful context — the equivalence to onto_interface_show and the scope-user frame — but says nothing about required permissions, what the returned view/fields look like, or error 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the read-only guarantee, then the sibling routing — a logical order with no wasted sentences. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword list is search-optimization padding rather than agent-facing meaning, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and sibling routing, and the annotations carry the behavioral profile. The only real gap is what the returned interface/view contains, which is not documented anywhere ('Sicht mit ihren Feldern' is only a hint).

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Interface-Name'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's '(Sicht mit ihren Feldern)' hints at the return shape but adds no syntax or format detail for the name parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 and resource (read a single interface in the self-service/scope-user context) and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: onto_interface_show (content-identical but for scope users) and onto_interface_index (lists all interfaces, admin). An agent can pick this tool 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 an explicit selection rule — 'nimm dieses, wenn du als Scope-Nutzer arbeitest' — and names the alternative tool for the admin/all case. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated, not left to inference.

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