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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the payment_status applicability constraint, but that is also present in the schema's payment_status description. Endpoint routing is not behaviorally important for the agent.

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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient: it states what is listed, then the sibling exclusion, then the payment_status constraint. The trailing HTTP endpoint adds minimal value for most agents but does not distract significantly.

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 10-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and detailed schema descriptions, this description covers the essential scope and the main sibling boundary. It lacks return-value or pagination hints, but no output schema exists and the schema already documents pagination parameters, so the omission is minor.

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 90%, so the schema already documents parameter meaning, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; its payment_status note is duplicated in the schema description.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (List) and enumerates the exact resource types covered: purchase orders, goods received notes, supplier credit notes, supplier payments, refunds. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bukku_list_purchase_bills by noting bills have their own tool.

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?

It routes the agent away from this tool for bills ('bills have their own tool, bukku_list_purchase_bills'), which is a clear alternative boundary. It also clarifies that payment_status only applies to certain document types. However, it does not say when to use get_purchase_document versus this list tool, leaving a small gap in selection guidance.

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