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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and default ordering, but the ordering ('newest id first') is already stated in the sort parameter's schema description, and pagination behavior is left to the offset schema. Net added behavioral context is modest.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core purpose and return fields front-loaded, followed by filters and ordering. Efficient, though the long comma-delimited field run is slightly less scannable than a structured list.

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 compensates by listing the returned attributes, and it enumerates filter fields for the free-form filters object. Pagination semantics (next_offset) live in the schema, so this is close to complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating valid filter field names (industry, relation_id, sale_order_status, account_manager, date gte/lte/between) that the generic filters object with only propertyNames: string cannot convey. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 customers (accounts)') and enumerates the returned attributes (code, name, phone, email, revenue, contacts), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with getfly_get_account, leaving sibling differentiation to be inferred from the name.

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?

The enumerated filter list and 'Newest first' hint at retrieval use cases, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus getfly_get_account, getfly_list_opportunities, or any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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