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

Annotations carry readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the mutation/safety profile is already declared. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the call may cost credits, that the operator reviews manually and decides freely, and that "ein Anspruch besteht nicht" (no entitlement) — meaningful consequences an agent must convey to a user.

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 routing constraint is front-loaded, but the body sprawls across three loosely related use cases before the keyword tail, and it ends with an odd English keyword string ("| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope") that is not prose and does not help an agent. Sized adequately but with clear filler.

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 no output schema, the description should explain outcomes; it does state that a request/order is created and manually reviewed, and covers cost implications and sibling alternatives. It stops short of describing what the agent gets back (status, confirmation, identifiers), so a small 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds value by prescribing what the required text field should contain in the credit-request case (project, purpose, needed scope, expected balance). It does not restate the schema's own default/enum notes for subject and category, so it is additive rather than redundant.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Eine Anfrage an einen fremden Scope-Anbieter stellen / Service anfordern") and immediately names the sibling tools it is not — ontouser_scope_list_public and ontouser_scope_assign_public. An agent can distinguish this request/booking-alternative tool from the direct-booking sibling 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Nutze es, wenn du eine Leistung aus einem oeffentlichen Scope brauchst, aber keine direkte Buchung moeglich ist") and names the concrete alternative path (ontouser_scope_assign_public for direct booking with rights). It also flags two secondary use cases (requesting starting credit, and anything only an admin can approve such as PUBLIC visibility and prepaid credit), so when/when-not is fully covered.

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