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

Annotations already declare read-only/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: permission-scoped visibility ('a team member sees the accounts they are assigned to or may view') and the auth requirement ('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?

The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Client accounts, individuals and companies, with their contacts' vs 'Lists client accounts, each an Individual or a Company, with the contacts linked to it'), which is wasted space. The operational and permission details are front-loaded reasonably well, but the redundancy costs it.

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, yet the description conveys the returned shape (accounts with linked contacts) and the crucial visibility constraint plus auth requirement. It stops short of describing pagination termination or ordering, but for a 4-param filtered list tool it is largely sufficient.

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 (type, limit, query, cursor). The description only restates query/cursor behavior ('Search by name or email and page with the cursor') without adding format or default detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 client accounts') plus the entity breakdown ('each an Individual or a Company, with the contacts linked to it'). This clearly distinguishes it from taxdome_get_account (single) and taxdome_create_account (mutation) without opening any 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?

It explains internal usage (search by name or email, page with the cursor) and the visibility scoping, which helps an agent operate it. However, it never names an alternative ('use get_account for a single account') or states when this is the wrong choice, so the routing versus siblings remains implied.

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