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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds paging behavior ('pass next_offset as offset') and the endpoint, which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, default result size, or auth/permission needs.

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 tight sentences with no waste; filters are front-loaded and paging/endpoint follow. Slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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 read-only, unpaginated-output list tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present. It lacks any note on what the response contains or how paging terminates, which is a modest gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including match semantics and limit ranges. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource (search invoices) and scope (invoicing module), with the three filter axes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling eboekhouden_list_outstanding_invoices, which is the nearest alternative for invoice listing.

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 implicit: it says what can be filtered by, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus eboekhouden_get_invoice (single fetch) or eboekhouden_list_outstanding_invoices. Paging guidance is the only procedural hint.

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