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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying API record (TERMS_OF_PAYMENT_GET) and the field set returned, but says nothing about volume, pagination behaviour, or response shape — which the schema partially covers for paging.

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 short sentences with no filler; the field list is front-loaded and the semantic note about 'number' is genuinely useful. Slightly compressed into a colon-list rather than a clean statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming the four fields. For a simple two-parameter read, nothing critical is missing, though the response envelope and whether results are paged are left to the schema.

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%, with limit and offset fully documented including the next_offset pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely (Collmex payment terms, TERMS_OF_PAYMENT_GET) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what a call yields. The verb comes from the title/name rather than the description, and no sibling overlap exists to disambiguate, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that 'the number is what customers, vendors and invoices refer to as payment_terms' hints this is the lookup for resolving that field, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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