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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description discloses that the call writes an assignment and may cost credits, and that the scope owner receives an earnings credit — meaningful side-effect context the annotations do not capture. It stops short of covering permissions or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 core action, then the cost warning, then the alternatives — a sensible order. Slightly long with the trailing 'EN:' keyword tag that adds little invocation value, but no wasted sentences.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost side effect, prerequisite check, and sibling alternatives. It is nearly complete; only explicit failure/permission behavior is absent, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the single scope_id parameter is already documented, including the owner-credit/earnings detail. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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: granting another account access to a public scope ('buchen'), and clarifies it writes an assignment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ontouser_scope_remove_public (revoke) and ontouser_scope_list_public (discovery), so an agent can separate the three without opening schemas.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('um einen fremden oeffentlichen Scope zu nutzen'), a mandatory prerequisite ('vorher onto_credit_pricing pruefen'), and names the exact alternatives for the opposite (remove_public) and preparatory (list_public) actions. Routing is fully specified.

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