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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: entries are ordered newest-first and file attachments are purged per retention policy while a minimal history persists. That warning is valuable because it tells the agent older rows may be incomplete. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics.

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 tight sentences: what is listed and in what order first, the retention caveat second. Nothing is redundant, though the retention sentence could have been folded in more compactly.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return shape and safety need no explanation here. However, for a paginated list tool the description omits how to page (limit + before cursor) and that limit caps at 50, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the loop from the schema alone.

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?

Only 'before' is described in the schema (as the cursor from the previous page's next_before); 'limit' has no description anywhere and the description never mentions either parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but contributes nothing about paging or page size.

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 ('Liste les conversions du compte'), plus the ordering (plus récente à la plus ancienne) and the visible fields (n° de facture, initiales, statut, conformité). It implicitly separates itself from get_conversion (single) and the conversion-creation siblings, but never names them.

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?

Listing history makes the use case inferable, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or a mention of get_conversion for single-record lookup, nor any note about when the retention-truncated history is insufficient. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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