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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context — filters combine with AND, text matching defaults to exact, and pagination continues via next_offset from the previous reply. It stops short of describing result shape or rate limits, but it clearly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Minor redundancy: the text-filter matching clause repeats semantics already spelled out in the 'match' parameter description, so it is efficient rather than perfectly edited.

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 9-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering semantics and the pagination loop, which is what an agent most needs. It leaves the returned relation fields unspecified, but that gap is modest given the read-only, low-risk nature of the call.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents each filter, the type enum, match enum, limit and offset. The description only restates the AND-combination and match-default behavior, adding little beyond the 'match' parameter's own description.

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 ('List relations') and defines the domain term ('customers and suppliers of the administration'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling eboekhouden_get_relation, which retrieves a single relation.

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?

It implies usage through the filtering and paging mechanics ('optionally filtered', 'Paged: pass next_offset as offset') but never states when to prefer this over get_relation or create/update_relation. Usage is inferable but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion is given.

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