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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds material behavior beyond them: it is owner-only, the PUBLIC side is now admin-curated (since 2026-10-12), going public has earnings/credits consequences, and the correct escalation path is a service request. This is unusually rich authorization and side-effect disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 critical routing information is front-loaded, but the description is long and repeats the public-visibility semantics twice, and the trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword tag adds no actionable meaning.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the policy, authorization, and alternative-path context an agent needs. It could say more about what the resulting visibility call returns or fails on, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining the public/private toggle and the earnings consequence, though it largely mirrors what the schema's read_allowed_for description already states.

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 ('Sichtbarkeit eines EIGENEN Scopes setzen') and scopes it to the caller's own resource, distinguishing it from the assign/remove-public siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this mutates 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 ('um einen Scope anzubieten oder wieder privat zu stellen'), names the alternative path for going public (ontouser_service_request with justification), and states the owner-only precondition plus the admin-only policy for PUBLIC. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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