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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real context: that price is the default only and a line may override it, that pagination works via next_cursor, and that a Cotlet API key with access to this app is required. These are traits the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads what the resource is and remains efficient, but there is mild redundancy between the first two sentences, which both restate that these are products/services with price and tax.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (items with default price and tax), pagination, and auth needs. Nothing critical is missing, though no guidance on what filter/query returns is provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, query, and cursor are already documented. The description adds a small amount of value by clarifying the cursor round-trip (pass next_cursor back as cursor), but nothing beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (lists) and resource (products and services) with the scope clarified as invoice-line items carrying default price and tax. This is easily distinguished from siblings like alegra_list_invoices or alegra_list_contacts.

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 description gives operational guidance for using the returned item_id as an invoice line and explains how to page with next_cursor/cursor, which is useful. However, it does not state when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, so usage is implied rather than framed explicitly.

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