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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the 'newest first' ordering; it says nothing about page size defaults, the dual response shape, or that an omitted limit silently returns 200 rows.

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?

One short sentence with the ordering hint front-loaded and zero waste. It is lean but arguably under-informative rather than over-long, so it is near the top of the scale on structure alone.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and complete annotations, so the bar is low, and ordering is a genuine addition. Still missing is any notion of what rows contain or what filtering scope applies, leaving an agent to infer rather than know.

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 the two parameters (limit, cursor) are documented in detail in the schema, including the legacy-array vs cursor-envelope behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 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 ('List your invoice_adjustment rows') and adds the ordering ('newest first'), which separates it from invoice_adjustment_read (single) and invoice_adjustment_record (write). It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the noun forms.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus invoice_adjustment_read or invoice_adjustment_delete, and no mention of scope (all rows? tenant-scoped?). Whether to use the bare-array legacy page or the cursor form is only explained inside the schema, not in the description.

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