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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral context: you become Owner and can manage the scope, and crucially you cannot remove it yourself because no ontouser path exists. Cost/credit behavior is only implied via the schema. Adds meaningful value beyond annotations.

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 guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the text is a mixed German/English block with an awkward '| EN:' tag list (end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope) that reads as loose keywords rather than coherent prose. The deletion caveat is appended after the language switch, weakening structure.

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 two-parameter create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership, the credit cost implied elsewhere, the deletion constraint, and routing to related tools. Only the return/response behavior is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including the [a-z0-9_] max-30 name constraint and credit cost). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and immediately scopes it as self-service without an administrator, which distinguishes it from admin-driven sibling operations like ontouser_scope_remove_public. An agent can identify the operation and its self-service nature without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Nutze es, um eigene Datenbereiche zu beginnen'), names the sibling tools for follow-up actions (ontouser_scope_set_visibility for availability, ontouser_scope_assign_public for booking), and states a clear when-not: you cannot delete your own scope, an administrator must do it. Routing guidance is unusually complete.

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