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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint and the shape of returned data — useful because there is no output schema — but says nothing about rate limits, page caps, or default page size behavior beyond what the schema already 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, ending with the endpoint. No redundant or filler text.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully names the fields returned and the available filter axes, and pagination/ordering details are fully covered in schema descriptions. Only the choice between offset and page_token and sibling routing are left implicit.

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% and every parameter (type, state, order, date bounds, overdue_only, page_token, offset, fields) carries its own documentation with enums and formats. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, adding no syntax or semantics beyond 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 bills (invoices)') and enumerates both the returned data (state, totals, amount due, dates) and the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from clio_get_bill by plurality, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 filter list implies when to use it (narrow by client, matter, state, overdue, dates), but there is no explicit 'use clio_get_bill when you know the ID' routing or any statement of when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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