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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: pagination ordering ('newest page first'), the cursor round-trip, that items expose paid vs. balance, and the API-key access requirement. It does not describe rate limits or page-size limits, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then filtering, pagination and auth follow in a logical order. It is slightly padded — the opening field list overlaps with later totals/balance detail — but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what each returned item contains (total, paid, balance) and how to page. Combined with the auth note and filter list, an agent has enough to call it; only the sort order relative to other list tools 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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all seven optional parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description mostly restates the status enum and filter fields rather than adding syntax beyond them, though the cursor re-use note gives slight extra value.

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 ('Lists sales invoices') and enumerates the fields carried (number, client, dates, status, total, balance), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like alegra_get_invoice or alega_list_payments, leaving that separation to inference.

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?

It describes the available filters (status, client, due date) which implies when the tool is useful, but never states when to prefer it over alegra_get_invoice for a single record or another Alegra list tool, and gives no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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