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

readOnlyHint=true and the title already establish this as a safe read, so the burden is lower. The description adds one real behavioral fact — results are paged — but says nothing about default page size behavior, rate limits, or the shape of a page of results beyond the parenthetical field list.

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, no filler, with the core resource and return content front-loaded before the pagination note. Nothing here is redundant with the name alone.

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 read-only listing tool with 10 optional filters and no output schema, telling the agent what the rows contain (prices, units, tax) and that paging exists is close to sufficient. Minor gaps remain around result ordering defaults and page-size defaults, though those are covered in schema parameter descriptions.

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 every one of the 10 filters is already documented in the schema (page/next_page, tags as Schlagworte, unit_id sourced from billomat_list_units, order_by syntax). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('articles'), and usefully disambiguates that articles include both products and services, plus what fields come back (prices, units, tax). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like billomat_get_article or billomat_create_article, but the list-vs-get-vs-create distinction is unambiguous from the 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?

'Paged' plus the schema's 'Use next_page from the previous reply' implies the pagination workflow, and 'List' makes the bulk-retrieval use case self-evident. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of the single-record sibling (billomat_get_article), and no mention of when to prefer this over a filtered lookup.

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