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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds domain context (units apply to article and item quantities) but nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or ordering defaults beyond what the schema documents.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, with the optional filter appended. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple, fully-documented, read-only list endpoint with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema requirement, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that results are paginated via the next_page pattern, but the schema already covers that.

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 page, per_page, order_by, and name are all fully documented in the schema. The description only nods at the name filter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (units used for article and item quantities), plus the available filter. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling list_articles, list_clients, list_taxes, etc., and the German gloss '(Einheiten)' disambiguates the domain term.

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 'optionally filtered by name' phrasing implies when the filter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note about when listing is preferable to fetching individual units. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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