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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the 'fail-closed (nur Objekte deiner Scopes)' access constraint, which tells the agent it may silently return nothing outside its scope. It does not describe return shape or the failure mode text, but that is a modest gap against full annotation coverage.

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 routing information is front-loaded in two compact sentences. The appended '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword tag is search filler rather than agent-facing guidance, which costs it a point.

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 and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies purpose, the sibling decision rule, and the missing-identifier path. Return values need not be explained, though whether a fail-closed miss surfaces as empty or an error is left 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% and the single required 'id' param is already documented as a 32-hex udid in the schema, so the description's mention of udid overlaps structured data. The 'ohne udid' note is usage-oriented rather than adding syntax or format detail, 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 and resource ('Ein einzelnes Objekt ueber seine udid ... lesen') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'onto_object_show', noting they are content-identical but audience-different. An agent can pick the right one 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?

Gives both the selection rule ('nimm dieses, wenn du als Scope-Nutzer (nicht als Administrator) arbeitest') and a fallback path when the udid is unknown ('Ohne udid: ontouser_scope_index, dann die Objektliste'). When-to-use and the named alternative are both explicit.

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