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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-scope unknowns are covered. The description adds the filter-conjunction behavior and the status vocabulary, but says nothing about pagination/deep paging limits despite limit<=2000 and offset<=10,000,000, nor about result ordering defaults.

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 short sentences with no filler; the resource and returned field set are front-loaded and the filter semantics arrive second. Nothing in it is padding.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description usefully enumerates what a result contains, which compensates for the absent return schema. Pagination behavior and sort defaults are left entirely to the schema, a small gap but not a blocking one.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns one step by adding the cross-parameter semantics ('all must match') that the schema does not state anywhere. It also restates the status enum values, which is redundant with the schema but harmless.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List or search sales orders (Aufträge)') and enumerates the fields returned (number, contact, totals, recurring flag, status), which separates it from the write and single-record siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with bexio_get_order or bexio_list_invoices/quotes, so an agent must infer that distinction from the resource name.

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 phrase 'With filters all must match' gives an implicit usage rule (AND semantics for combined filters), which is actionable. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bexio_get_order for a single order, or over the sibling list tools for invoices/quotes, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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