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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Saying it is a GET with fixed JSON implies a read-only retrieval, and 'Explicit company required' discloses a tenancy/permission prerequisite, but it does not describe error behavior, permissions beyond company, or other operational traits.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint and required company. 'Fixed JSON' is slightly jargon-like, but otherwise every clause contributes useful 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 simple three-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required company, and query-filter pointer. It is nearly complete, though it could mention error behavior or explicitly distinguish itself from the list operation.

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 must compensate. It maps the three parameters at a high level: {id} is the booking-template identifier, company_name is the explicitly required company, and query contains flat fields with a pointer to describe_nextesy_operation for filters. It does not explain formats or individual query fields, but it adds useful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description identifies a specific verb/resource through the endpoint GET /api/v1/accounting/booking-templates/{id}, making clear it retrieves one booking template by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_booking_templates, so it falls short of perfect sibling differentiation.

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?

The requirement that an explicit company is needed gives a prerequisite, and the pointer to describe_nextesy_operation helps with filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_booking_templates or another retrieval sibling.

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