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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false-safe read behavior, but the description adds real context: newest-first ordering, 200-receipt page cap, the meaning of Unfinished (still editable) vs Approved (official accounts), and the Cotlet API-key access requirement. Return-field semantics are touched on via the field list even without an output schema.

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?

Five short, information-dense sentences with no filler; purpose and ordering lead, followed by status semantics, filtering, page size, and auth. The opening fragment ('Procountor: Journal receipts with...') is slightly list-like but still front-loads the essentials.

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 full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering, page size, status semantics, and authentication. Nothing critical is missing, though cursor-based pagination flow is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains what the 'unfinished'/'approved' status values actually signify and clarifies paging capacity (up to 200) rather than just the numeric limit. It does not explain the cursor beyond what the schema says.

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 journal receipts, newest first') and even names the fields each receipt carries (name, date, VAT type, status). It is clearly a read/list tool, distinct from the sibling procountor_create_journal_receipt, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

'Filter by status or receipt date' implies how to narrow results, and the auth note gives a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to a sibling (e.g., get vs list, or create_journal_receipt).

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