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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description earns credit for the extra operational detail: the explicit GET /v1/mutation endpoint and the pagination contract (next_offset returned via offset). It stops short of describing result fields or the default page size, but it adds real context beyond the annotation.

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 the search action, then type codes, filters, paging and endpoint in a compact sequence with no filler. The type-code enumeration partially duplicates the schema field description, slightly reducing density, but the whole is short and skimmable.

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 10-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers invocation (filters, paging, endpoint) well. The main residual gap is that it never sketches what a returned mutation contains, which is normally covered by an output schema that is absent here.

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%, including the same type enumeration, date semantics, match modes and limits, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description's restatement of the type codes and filter list adds marginal value but no syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search the bookkeeping mutations') and scopes it with an enumerated type list and the filters that are available. It is clearly a filtered-list tool, but it never names its closest sibling get_mutation, so the list-vs-single distinction must be inferred from the word 'Search'.

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 by the filter enumeration ('Filter by type, mutation number, description, invoice number or date') and by the paging hint ('pass next_offset as offset'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool (e.g. get_mutation) is named for the single-record case, so an agent must infer the routing.

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