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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by naming the HTTP endpoint and, importantly, describing the return shape (number, client, totals, balance_paid, balance_due, dates) in the absence of an output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filters, followed by the returned fields and endpoint. No filler; every clause contributes.

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 21-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is filtered and what comes back, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain (pagination workflow is only in schema, no note on combining filters or sort defaults), but it is broadly complete.

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 every one of the 21 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description's filter enumeration largely restates what the schema provides without adding syntax, interaction, or semantics beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('documents: tax invoices, proformas, debit and credit notes'), then enumerates the filter dimensions and the fields returned per row. An agent can immediately tell this is the collection/query endpoint, distinct from single-record siblings like invbg_get_invoice.

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 implies usage (query documents with filters) but never states when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, nor prerequisites. The only routing hint is the schema's client_id note referencing invbg_list_clients, not the description itself.

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