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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: results are scoped to the signed-in administration, pagination uses limit/offset, and the Cotlet API key needs access to this app. It does not describe the response envelope, but the auth and scoping disclosures are meaningful.

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 filter set is listed twice in consecutive sentences ('filtered by name, email, code, city or type' then 'Filter by name, email, relation code, city or type'), which is redundant padding. The key facts are front-loaded, but a sentence could be trimmed.

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 scope (signed-in administration), pagination, auth requirements, and how relation_id is reused downstream. Return-field enumeration is present, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all seven parameters are already documented. The description restates the filter fields and the B/P type values, which are already in the schema, adding little new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (relations = customers/suppliers), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not name the sibling get_relation for single-record lookup, so an agent must infer the distinction between listing and fetching.

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?

Gives clear context: filter to 'find one before you invoice it' and notes the relation_id feeds other tools. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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