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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description's one addition is the result ordering (newest first), which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations; pagination behavior is instead carried by the 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the ordering note is front-loaded in the parenthetical. It is efficient, though it is also the entire description, so brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 two-optional-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, full annotations and no output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; the pagination contract lives in the schema where it belongs.

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% and both parameters are documented in detail, including the unusual legacy bare-array first page and cursor semantics. The description adds nothing about limit or cursor, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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 (List) and resource (invoice_client rows) and adds the default ordering (newest first), which is real information. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby invoice_client_search or invoice_client_read siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance at all. With invoice_client_search, invoice_client_read and invoice_client_list all present in the sibling set, the description never says that this is the unfiltered enumeration and search is the filtered path, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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