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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: page size (up to 100), the cursor round-trip for pagination, and the API-key access prerequisite.

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-loaded with purpose, followed by return contents, downstream usage, pagination, and auth in a logical order. Mostly tight, though the redundant 'sevdesk:' prefix and the prose listing of return fields add minor padding.

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 parameterless-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (persons/organizations with category, email, customer number), pagination, and the auth requirement. It is largely complete, with only result-count or sort behavior left unstated.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds a bit of color by enumerating category values (Kunde, Lieferant, Partner, Interessent) and clarifying name matching, but this is framed as describing return values rather than parameter usage, so it only slightly exceeds the baseline.

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 ('searches contacts by name and returns persons and organizations') and names the domain (customers, suppliers, other contacts). An agent can immediately tell this is a read/lookup tool for the sevdesk contact directory, distinct from sevdesk_create_contact.

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 downstream context ('Pass contact_id to create_invoice_draft or list_invoices'), effectively telling the agent this is the lookup step preceding invoicing. However, it never states when NOT to use it or contrasts with sevdesk_create_contact, so exclusions are absent.

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