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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description is free to add the parts that matter: the exact content returned (Name, Beschreibung, Stichworte, contactability setting) and the important nuance that another person's profile is only the public view. It stays consistent with readOnlyHint and adds real value beyond 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the no-argument case, then the nutzer_id case. Every sentence carries information and none repeats annotations or schema text.

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 correctly compensates by listing the fields returned, and with only one fully documented parameter the remaining burden is small. It lacks only an edge case such as what happens for an unknown nutzer_id, which is minor for this tool.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting nutzer_id yields the caller's own profile while supplying it yields the other person's *public* profile. That privacy distinction is genuinely useful for deciding which value to pass.

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 ('Liest ein Profil') and immediately splits the behaviour into two named modes: own profile without arguments, and another person's public profile with nutzer_id. It is clearly distinguishable from the write sibling profil_aendern, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 concrete usage context: without arguments for the user's own profile, with nutzer_id when you want to see someone else's public profile 'etwa bevor du sie anschreibst'. That is a clear trigger condition, but there are no explicit exclusions or pointers to sibling tools.

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