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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond the annotations: pagination behavior ('Pages hold up to 200 partners') and an auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app').

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?

Short and mostly front-loaded, with the resource stated first and the operational facts (types, pagination, auth) after. The opening fragment 'Procountor: Customers, suppliers and persons from the register' is slightly choppy, but there is little wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of return context and does supply the key detail (partner_id usable as customer downstream) plus pagination and auth. It does not explain how to page with cursor, but the schema covers that, making it largely complete for a list tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the type options and the searchable-by-name-or-business-ID behavior, which largely duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Searches the business partner register by name or business ID') and names the covered entity types (customer, supplier, person). It is unmistakably a read/list tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling procountor_create_partner, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note to reuse the returned partner_id in create_sales_invoice hints at the intended workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the create_partner alternative for the write case. Adequate but leaves selection partly to inference.

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