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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided by annotations, the description adds meaningful filter semantics: unfiltered listing pages through all contacts while filtered listing uses a search where all filters must match. It does not discuss rate limits or detailed response shape, but it adds useful behavior beyond 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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words; the list/search scope and filter behavior are front-loaded, and the name_1/name_2 clarification follows naturally.

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 13-parameter optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral split between unfiltered paging and filtered search. It leaves some details to the schema, such as archived default behavior and offset usage, which is reasonable given full schema coverage.

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 explaining the two name fields in business terms and by stating that filters are ANDed together. That AND behavior is not evident from the individual parameter descriptions alone.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists or searches contacts, and it names the entity subtypes (customers, suppliers, persons, companies). It implicitly distinguishes itself from bexio_get_contact by being a list/search operation, but it does not explicitly route single-record lookups to the sibling tool.

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 gives concrete usage behavior: no filters means paging through contacts, filters invoke bexio's contact search with all filters required to match. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as bexio_get_contact, but the list-vs-get distinction is implied clearly enough.

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