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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare the safety profile, so the description's added burden is modest. It contributes the filter-combination rule and the set of returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset interplay) or result ordering beyond what the schema states.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor waste in re-listing the status enum values that already appear in the schema.

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 12-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (number, contact, totals, validity, status) and how filters combine. Only pagination expectations are left implicit, which the schema's next_offset note partially handles.

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 12 parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The only semantic added beyond the schema is that filters combine with AND, which is genuinely useful but small.

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+resource ('List or search quotes (Offerten)') and enumerates the returned facets (number, contact, totals, validity, status). It is clearly distinct from bexio_get_quote and the other list_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 useful AND-semantics guidance for combining filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to bexio_get_quote for single-record retrieval. 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.