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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: sort order ('newest first'), the currency semantics of total/amount paid, and an auth requirement ('needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It omits pagination/result-limit behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 what the tool returns and its scope, then filters, then behavioral notes. Every sentence carries information, though the currency explanation is slightly verbose for a list tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields (number, client, title, total, amount paid, due date, status), plus ordering and auth. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool; only pagination/result-cap behavior is unaddressed.

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% with the enum, default, and formats already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three filter axes and adds a semantic note about currency and partial payments, but that note concerns returned values rather than the parameters themselves.

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+resource ('Lists invoices'), enumerates the fields returned, and pins the scope ('from Office, newest first'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling suitedash_get_invoice (single invoice) without opening either 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 a clear use case ('Filter by status, client or due date to find what is overdue'), which tells the agent when the filters matter. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_invoice), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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