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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value beyond annotations: the underlying API route, the field set returned, and the fact that results come back in a paged envelope. It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limiting, but it clearly exceeds the annotation's coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by API route, return shape, and a filter tip, with no filler sentences. The embedded endpoint path is borderline but arguably useful for cross-referencing Codat docs.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating the return fields and noting the paged envelope is genuinely necessary and provided. The main omission is that the description never routes the agent to the single-invoice sibling for the detail case.

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 parameters are already documented (page, query, orderBy, pageSize, companyId). The description adds only a filter example, and that example ('status=Submitted&&amountDue>0') diverges in style from the schema's own examples, so it adds little beyond 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 ('List a company's accounts-receivable invoices') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the singular sibling codat_get_invoice. An agent can pick this over the sibling without opening either schema.

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 'Tip: filter with query' line implies a usage pattern (narrow with filters), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus codat_get_invoice or the other list tools, and no stated prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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