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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: returned fields (supplier, date, net, VAT, gross), newest-first ordering, and the Cotlet API key access requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded with scope first, then return shape, then use cases and auth. The auth sentence is mildly boilerplate but still actionable. No redundancy or filler.

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, filter-driven list with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, sort order, and auth prerequisite, which is enough to call it correctly. Ordering default and pagination behavior relative to per_page could be slightly richer, but nothing essential is missing.

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 page, per_page, company_id and both ISO dates are already documented. The description only reiterates 'filtered by date' without adding format, bounds, or pagination semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 disambiguates the resource by expanding 'expenses' into 'received documents (expenses and supplier invoices)', which is genuinely useful since the tool name alone is ambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling fatture-in-cloud_list_invoices, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 concrete use cases ('avoid recording the same receipt twice', 'export a month for your accountant') that tell the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. record_expense or list_invoices) or stating when not to use it.

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