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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the detail-level cost hint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or what a receiver record contains; it also doesn't note that openWorldHint implies remote data that may be large.

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 the resource and its disambiguation front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. Slight waste in repeating the exact RQL example already present in the schema, and the trailing bare URL is terse to the point of being unlabeled.

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?

Five optional parameters, all fully described in the schema, no nested objects, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to construct a call; only the shape of the returned receiver list is left implicit, which is acceptable 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 description coverage is 100% — rql, pgnum, pgsiz, detail and itemdetail are all documented with examples and bounds in the schema itself. The description's RQL example is a verbatim duplicate of the schema's and the detail hint restates the enum, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields. 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 specific verb and resource ("List inbound receivers") and disambiguates the domain term with the gloss "receipts of goods", plus the underlying endpoint GET /inventory/receivers. It also implicitly separates receiver-level from line-level data by pointing to detail=ReceiveItems, though it never names the sibling extensiv_list_receiver_items that actually serves lines.

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?

"Use detail=ReceiveItems for the lines" is the only usage cue, and it is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over extensiv_get_receiver, extensiv_list_receiver_items, or extensiv_list_purchase_orders, and no exclusions.

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