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 is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and the returned fields, which is useful, but it omits pagination behavior, default status exclusion of void, and page-size defaults that matter for a list endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: returned fields first, filter dimensions second, endpoint third. No redundancy or filler.

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 an 11-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description gives the agent the core picture: what is returned, how to filter, and the underlying endpoint. It could mention pagination and sorting more clearly, but the schema covers those details adequately.

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?

With 73% schema coverage and 11 parameters, the schema already documents most filters in detail. The description reinforces date, customer, payment_status and search filtering but adds no syntax or behavioral nuance, and leaves status, sort_by, sort_dir, page, page_size and payment_mode to the schema.

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 sales invoices') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bukku_list_sales_documents, which is the only missing clarity element.

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 description implies usage by listing filter dimensions (date, customer, payment status, keywords), which tells an agent how to narrow results. However, it never says when to choose this over bukku_list_sales_documents or bukku_get_sales_document, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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