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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful traits beyond that: facts are 'sourced' and limited to 'Max 15 facts.' This gives the agent realistic expectations about result scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 entire description is one tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action, then adds aliases, optional filter, and a result cap. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the vendor identifier forms, accepted aliases, optional topic, and result limit. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 value by listing concrete aliases (bc/business central/dynamics, sap b1/sap, sage 100/sage x3) and restating the optional topic filter. This helps an agent supply correct values beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return sourced facts for one ERP vendor.' It also clarifies acceptable identifiers and aliases, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from siblings like list_vendors or einvoicing_status.

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?

The description clearly states this is for one vendor and supports an optional topic filter, providing clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one vendor' and 'facts' framing makes the intended use apparent.

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