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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, and says nothing about pagination behavior, default active-only scoping, rate limits, or result caps (limit max 50).

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 tight sentences: field inventory first, filters second, endpoint last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With eight parameters, 50% schema coverage and no output schema, listing the returned fields is valuable compensation. But it omits pagination semantics (offset/next_offset), the limit cap, the state filter, and expand, all of which an agent needs to page or shape the response correctly.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by naming four of the eight filters (code/tax id, name/first name, last name, email) and clarifying that code is the tax id. It says nothing about state, expand, limit, or offset, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 customers") and enumerates the returned fields plus the backing endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast with bsale_get_client or bsale_client_unpaid_documents, leaving sibling differentiation to inference from the names.

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 tax id, name, last name or email" implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is for browsing/searching versus fetching one client via bsale_get_client, and no mention of when the filter combinations are appropriate.

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