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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Rein lesend' mostly restates structured data. The description does add value by noting the payload is a view together with its fields and that behavior is content-identical to onto_interface_show, but it says nothing about what happens for an unknown name or what fields come back.

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?

The core purpose and scope routing come first in a tight two-clause sentence, followed by alternatives. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword block is somewhat noisy and only partly earns its place, keeping it short of a 5.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety, return shape at a high level, and sibling routing. The only remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor given full schema coverage and complete annotations.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics of 'name'. The description adds no format, casing, or lookup-by-title vs lookup-by-id nuance, so the baseline of 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 ('lesen') plus the exact resource ('ein einzelnes Interface im Self-Service-Kontext') and clarifies what is returned ('Sicht mit ihren Feldern'). It explicitly differentiates itself from both onto_interface_show (identical content, different scope) and onto_interface_index (admin listing), so an agent can disambiguate 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: use this one when acting as a scope/end user, use onto_interface_show as the equivalent admin-side tool, and use onto_interface_index to list all interfaces. Both the relevant alternative and the condition that selects it are named.

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