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

The description details the specific data points retrieved (name, Bulstat, VAT number, etc.), which provides context on the response payload. Since the annotations already handle the safety profile (readOnlyHint), the description adds useful scope information without contradicting the defined behavior.

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?

It is concise, summarizing the tool's utility and scope in a single, readable sentence. The key function (List or search) and the main attributes are front-loaded.

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?

Given the high complexity of the 12 input parameters, the description is adequate for defining what the *results* look like. However, it remains incomplete by not providing context on the search complexity, performance constraints, or guidance on the appropriate use cases versus other sibling tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is already moderate. The description reiterates the semantic content of the client data (e.g., 'Bulstat', 'whether it is a person'), which confirms the type of records the parameters will retrieve, but doesn't add complex filtering logic not already implied by 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?

The tool clearly states its function: to 'List or search clients (customers)'. This verb-resource structure is clear, and the phrase 'customers' helps distinguish it conceptually from a general 'client' record.

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 description lacks guidance on *when* to use this tool relative to alternatives. It provides a simple summary of capability but does not advise the agent on specific scenarios for list/search operations versus targeted lookups (e.g., invbg_get_client).

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