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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's added value is the row shape, which it discloses in full. It does not describe pagination or default sorting, though the schema's first_result and newest_first descriptions largely cover those.

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 front-loaded sentence that defines the resource before enumerating fields. The field list is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; the raw endpoint path is the only unearned fragment.

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 13-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned row fields and their meaning. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though pagination flow is left to the schema.

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 the schema already documents all 13 filters including date formats and paging semantics. The description adds no filter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 ('Search goods-out notes') and immediately defines it in domain terms ('pick/pack/ship records of sales orders'), which distinguishes it from the goods-in sibling. The trailing endpoint is redundant but harmless.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource definition and filter semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing toward brightpearl_search_goods_in_notes or brightpearl_search_orders as alternatives.

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