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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'fail-closed: du siehst nur deine Zuordnungen' tells the agent the result is auth-scoped to the caller's own assignments. It does not describe the return shape, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a solid contribution.

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 German body is front-loaded, with the verb first and the sibling routing last, and every sentence carries information. The trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' is keyword stuffing that adds no decision-relevant content and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, visibility scoping, and alternative routing – everything an agent needs to select and call it. Only the irrelevant keyword tail detracts; no functional gap remains.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the zero-parameter baseline this lands at 4; no parameter naming or format guidance is needed.

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 ('Die eigenen Scopes auflisten' – list your own scopes) and immediately scopes it ('Bereiche, auf die dein Konto Zugriff hat'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ontouser_scope_list_public, which handles publicly bookable foreign scopes, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('Nutze es als Einstieg im Self-Service, um deine Scope-IDs zu finden') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('Oeffentlich buchbare fremde Scopes zeigt ontouser_scope_list_public'). Both the selection condition and the alternative are explicit.

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