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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the session-scoping constraint (the current business), which is useful, but says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs substring), result caps, or ordering.

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 sentence with the searchable fields front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers purpose, match fields, and scoping. Only the result-set behavior (limits, ordering, exactness of match) is left unstated.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'query' parameter, and it does add real meaning by stating that the query matches number, title, or customer. It still omits whether matching is partial/fuzzy or case-sensitive, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (estimates) and lists the three searchable fields (number, title, customer). It distinguishes itself from the list_* siblings by being a query-driven lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with find_clients or the list tools.

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?

'for the business you picked' implies a prerequisite (a business must already be selected) and the presence of a query implies the search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as list_recent_invoices or find_clients.

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