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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a safe read and the org-scope note clarifies the search boundary, but the description says nothing about permissions, result shape, or pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter).

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 the primary purpose front-loaded and the scoping caveat second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It never explains what an invoice record contains or how intentId from RecordUserQuestion should be used, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent calling it unsupervised.

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%, so all four parameters (query, limit, intentId, unpaidOnly) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the query keys without adding format, syntax, or edge-case guidance, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find customer invoice(s)') plus the two lookup keys (invoice number or customer email), which is enough to distinguish it from LookupCustomer or InvoiceInvestigation at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'No organisationId needed' tells the agent a required scoping input is absent, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to InvoiceInvestigation, which appears to be the closest alternative for invoice problems.

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