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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond those. It does not mention pagination behavior, required company context, filtering support, or connection handling, which would add value beyond the structured fields.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is under-specified compared to orker expectations, but conciseness itself is good; it does not ramble or restate schema details.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete. It misses whether results are paginated, whether filters are supported, and whether a company context is mandatory. The annotations clarify read-only safety, and the schema provides some parameter detail, but the description alone does not give an agent enough operational context.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 50%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents companyName, connectionRef, filter, and orderBy, but the remaining params (top, page, skip, pageSize) are underdescribed in both the schema and the description; the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('BRC sales invoices'), so an agent can identify what this tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast it with nearby siblings such as brc_list_sales or brc_list_sales_entries, but the resource is named precisely enough for basic discrimination.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like brc_list_sales, brc_batch_sales_invoices, or brc_get_sales_invoice. The description only restates the tool's action and does not provide conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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