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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the context that it returns only the counterparty name and references the address book, which provides some extra value but not substantial behavioral detail. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with zero waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the purpose is stated immediately. No redundant words.

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 list/find tool with 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and what it returns, and the schema covers pagination and filtering details. The only minor gap is not stating that no search returns all counterparties, but that is implied. No critical information is missing.

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%, meaning every parameter is already documented. The description mentions 'counterparty name' and 'address book' but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'search' already filters by name). The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find', the resource 'saved vendor, person, or organization in the address book', and the specific purpose 'get the counterparty name needed to assign it to an accounting entry line'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_portfolios and list_ledger_accounts, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario ('needed to assign it to an accounting entry line'), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other listing tools.

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