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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds material context beyond that: it may consume credits, the request is reviewed manually by the operator, the operator decides freely, and there is no entitlement — a crucial expectation-setting detail for an agent.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the text is a single run-on paragraph that repeats the 'Auch der Weg...' construction twice and ends with an unrelated English keyword tag ('end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope') that adds no actionable information.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers costs, manual review, and prerequisites well. The remaining gap is what happens on return (request ID, status, credit deduction timing), which an agent would want before retrying or following up.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by telling the agent what to put into `text` for a credit request (intended project, purpose, required scope, expected credit) — content guidance the schema does not provide.

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 concrete verb and resource — submitting a request to a foreign scope provider, creating a request/order that may cost credits. It also distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming them (ontouser_scope_list_public for discovery, ontouser_scope_assign_public for direct booking).

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (need a service from a public scope but direct booking is impossible) and explicit alternatives with the condition that selects them, plus two additional use cases (requesting starting credits, admin-only approvals such as PUBLIC visibility or prepaid credit). 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.