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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds real behavioral context: the caller becomes owner with management rights, cannot delete it (no ontouser path — admin only), and the operation costs credits configured via pricing scope_credit_cost, with possible earnings when others use it. That is materially beyond what the annotations convey.

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 content is compact and front-loaded, but the '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword fragment runs straight into the German deletion sentence, making the text awkward to parse. Mixed-language keyword stuffing costs structural clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back — and it does not. An agent needs the created scope's identifier to chain into ontouser_scope_set_visibility or assign_public, and that is left unspecified. Lifecycle behavior (ownership, cost, no self-delete) is otherwise well covered.

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 description coverage is 100% and the 'name' parameter description already carries the credit-cost, earnings, and naming-pattern details, so the description adds no parameter-level information of its own. 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 ('einen eigenen Scope anlegen') plus the key qualifier 'Self-Service, ohne Administrator', which separates it from admin scope management. It does not directly contrast with a sibling create-tool, but it does establish the owner outcome ('Du wirst Owner des neuen Scopes').

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 use case ('um eigene Datenbereiche zu beginnen') and routes to the correct follow-up tools (ontouser_scope_set_visibility, ontouser_scope_assign_public). It also states a hard exclusion: a user cannot delete their own scope, only an admin can. No conditional or negative case beyond deletion is spelled out.

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