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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies what is returned (balance and booking lines with amount, reason, time) and reinforces that mutations belong to another 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 core information is front-loaded in two efficient sentences. The trailing English keyword list is slightly redundant but small and aids discoverability, so overall structure is tight with no wasted explanation.

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 simple read tool with one fully documented parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and the alternative for mutations. It doesn't cover pagination or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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% and profile_id is fully described as the managed account's profile ID. The description reinforces that it refers to one managed account but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('lesen') and resource ('Guthaben und Umbuchungen EINES verwalteten Kontos'), and explicitly distinguishes the scope from the mutating sibling ontouser_team_transfer. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only balance/transaction query for a managed account.

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 that topping up and distributing is done via ontouser_team_transfer from your own account, which is a clear alternative. It also scopes usage to one managed account and read-only operations, though it doesn't explicitly exclude the onto_credit_* tools for personal accounts.

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