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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that only metadata/approved fields are exposed and that secrets, contacts and original files are excluded — information not present in the annotations or 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the field-scope constraint is placed immediately after the purpose. Appropriately sized for a simple collection-read tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is right to characterize what comes back (metadata/approved fields), and it does so. But for a tool whose entire contract is filtering and paging, leaving all three parameters unexplained leaves a meaningful gap before an agent can invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the three parameters (limit, query, offset) are never mentioned in the description. Critically, it doesn't say what 'query' searches over, which is the single most useful thing an agent could learn here, nor does it note the limit/offset pagination ceiling.

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?

Uses a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('reimbursements'), and the second sentence scopes exactly which fields are returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_reimbursement (list vs. single fetch), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Read authorised reimbursements through the existing application' implies a browse/list operation but never states when to use this versus get_reimbursement or when-not to use it. The only guidance is the field-scope note ('Metadata/approved fields only'), which is a data restriction, not a usage rule.

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