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

Beyond annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses important semantics: the flag alone conveys no rights, every action additionally checks can_manage_scope and the specific right, and the caller's own account is excluded. These are exactly the permission and result-set traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 statement is front-loaded and each German sentence carries real information (read-only nature, flag semantics, own-account exclusion, default scope, profile_id origin). The trailing '| EN: managed accounts, my team, sub-agents, company manager' keyword list is discoverability padding rather than useful instruction, costing some tightness.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what qualifies an account, what is excluded, what happens with and without scope_id, and that the returned profile_id feeds downstream team tools. 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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that scope_id restricts the listing to one scope and requires can_manage_scope there. The description repeats this default behavior rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 Konten auflisten, die DU fuehrst') and defines the exact membership criterion (managed_by_scope_id flag), which separates it from list_members or ontouser_scope_index. The added detail that your own account never appears further sharpens the scope of the result set.

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 positions the tool as the entry point for all further team tools and states that profile_id must always come from this list and never be guessed — strong routing guidance. The default behavior without scope_id is also specified. It stops short of naming a sibling it replaces or excludes (e.g. list_members or ontouser_team_show), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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