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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds useful content context (results include totals and payment status) and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination limits or result ordering behavior 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?

Two compact sentences plus a one-line endpoint reference; the core capability and the filter axes are front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence carries information.

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 9-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (documents with totals and payment status), how to narrow results, and the API path. It lacks explicit pagination/output-shape guidance, but the schema handles the parameters and there is no output schema to compensate for.

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 9 parameters is already documented (including enum values for status and document_type). The description only restates the filterable axes (type, order, customer, status), adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List invoices, quotes and contracts'), plus what the results contain ('totals and payment status'). It is distinguishable from siblings because no other list tool covers documents, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the other booqable_list_* tools.

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?

'Filter by type, order, customer or status' implies when the tool is useful (narrowing a document set) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative such as fetching a single document via an order. 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.