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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' largely restates them. The added value is the return-field inventory (id, amount, currency, status, buyer), which the annotations do not convey and which substitutes for the absent output schema.

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 action and payload, followed by the safety note and the sibling hand-off. No filler and nothing that duplicates the schema at length.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the cap, and the next-step tools. Minor gaps remain (no mention of paging behavior beyond limit, or of default ordering), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, business) are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the limit bounds (1 to 100) and adds no new meaning for the business parameter, so it does not exceed the structured baseline.

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+resource ('List invoices') and enumerates what is returned (id, amount, currency, status, buyer), which lets an agent recognize the payload without an output schema. It also distinguishes itself from the per-invoice siblings by telling the agent that an id from this list feeds agenta_invoices_receipt / agenta_invoices_send_receipt.

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 clear context: use this to enumerate invoices, then pass an id to the receipt or send_receipt tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. a filtered lookup or other list tools), but the sibling routing is explicit and actionable.

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