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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: page size cap of 100 receipts and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. Pagination mechanics are left to the schema's cursor field.

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-loads the resource and scope well, but the opening sentence's content (supplier, amount, status, newest first) is restated almost verbatim in the second sentence, wasting space. Minor duplication costs it a point.

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 a fully-described schema and annotations, the description covers resource, scope, filter dimensions, status semantics, page size, and auth. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the cursor-based paging more explicitly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic meaning the enum alone doesn't convey — defining draft/unpaid/paid in business terms and noting date-range and text filtering. It does not add syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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 receipts in the Belege area) with explicit scope (expenses and income, newest first). An agent can distinguish it from sevdesk_upload_receipt, sevdesk_mark_voucher_paid, and sevdesk_list_invoices without opening the schema.

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 for filtering by type, status, date range or description, and explains what each status means (draft needs checking, unpaid waits for payment, paid is booked) so the agent can pick the right filter. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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