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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: it writes an assignment, can consume credits, requires a pricing check, and credits the scope owner's earnings. It does not, however, warn what happens on a repeated call despite idempotentHint=false, which is a meaningful gap for a credit-consuming write.

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 prerequisite are front-loaded, alternatives are grouped afterward, and every sentence carries operational value. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword string is noise that does not help selection.

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, non-destructive write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the cost warning, the ownership-credit consequence, and the correct alternatives. The missing piece is repeat-call behavior given idempotentHint=false and real credit costs, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema itself explains that scope_id is the public scope to book and that the owner receives a credit credit. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or format details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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 (booking it), and the schema field confirms this is a 'Read' booking. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ontouser_scope_remove_public for revoking and ontouser_scope_list_public for discovery, so an agent can route without opening other 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 an explicit when-to-use ('Nutze es, um einen fremden oeffentlichen Scope zu nutzen'), names the alternative for the opposite operation (remove_public) and the tool for enumeration (list_public). It also flags a prerequisite: check onto_credit_pricing beforehand because the operation can cost credits.

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