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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful conjunctive-filter rule, but says nothing about pagination defaults, ordering behavior, or maximum result sets — all of which matter for a listing tool.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It loses a point because the field list includes attributes that don't correspond to any filter parameter, which is filler that can mislead.

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?

Read-only annotations and a fully documented 7-parameter schema carry most of the burden, and no output schema is declared. The description is adequate but silent on default result behavior (e.g. unfiltered listing capped by limit) that an agent would want before calling.

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 all seven parameters are already self-documenting; baseline 3 applies. The one added value is the AND-combination rule, though the description also names 'type, dates, budget' which are not filter parameters in the schema, creating mild ambiguity about what can actually be filtered.

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?

States a specific verb ('List or search') and resource ('projects'), and enumerates the queryable attributes. It is clearly distinguishable from bexio_get_project (single-record fetch) by the 'List or search' phrasing, though it never names that sibling explicitly as the alternative.

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?

'With filters all must match' gives a hint about how to combine criteria, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus bexio_get_project, nor on what happens when no filters are supplied. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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