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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by stating the result is scoped/fail-closed ("du siehst nur deine Zuordnungen"), which is a behavioral filter constraint not visible in the empty schema. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, 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?

The substantive sentences are front-loaded and waste-free. However, the trailing "| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope" keyword block is search-bait that adds no decision-relevant information and pads the definition.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich annotation set and no output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: purpose, the safe-read nature, the visibility constraint, and where to go for public scopes. A brief note on what a returned scope record contains would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly signals a no-argument call by framing the tool as returning "deine Scope-IDs" without any input qualification.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Die eigenen Scopes auflisten") and immediately clarifies what a scope is ("Bereiche, auf die dein Konto Zugriff hat"). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ontouser_scope_list_public, so an agent can tell the two list tools apart without reading 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?

Usage is explicit: "Nutze es als Einstieg im Self-Service, um deine Scope-IDs zu finden" gives the entry-point scenario, and the named alternative plus its condition ("Oeffentlich buchbare fremde Scopes zeigt ontouser_scope_list_public") covers the when-not case. Nothing is left to inference.

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