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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /network/{hash_key}/invoices) and ordering by date, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result shape beyond what the schema provides.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a compact endpoint pointer. Nothing redundant, though the endpoint reference adds little decision value for an agent.

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 simple read-only filtered list with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only pagination behavior and return shape are left implicit, and the latter is partly covered by schema.

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 page, per_page, and hash_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description's only added signal is the 'connection (client)' gloss on hash_key, which is marginal over the schema's existing explanation.

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 (List) and resource (invoices) scoped to one connection/client, and adds the ordering ('by date'). It distinguishes itself in substance from hiveage_list_invoices by the 'one connection' scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'one connection (client)': use it when you already have a connection's hash_key. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer hiveage_list_invoices or hiveage_get_invoice, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the required hash_key.

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