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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the response fields (code, date, branch, supplier, total, lines), the filter surface, and the underlying endpoint. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior, though the latter is partly captured in the 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by filters and the endpoint. Nothing is redundant; the parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 helpfully lists the returned fields, and all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema. It falls short on sibling differentiation and on explaining what integer status codes mean, which an agent may need to filter meaningfully.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema; the description only restates the filter categories (branch, status, purchase date). It does not clarify the meaning of numeric status codes, explain include_payment or pagination usage, or add syntax beyond 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 (list) and resource (goods receipts from suppliers), including the Vietnamese term 'nhap hang' and the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what the tool reads. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as kiotviet_list_supplier_orders or kiotviet_get_purchase_order, leaving ambiguity between 'supplier orders' and 'purchase orders'.

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 names the available filter dimensions (branch, status, purchase-date range), which implies how to use it for filtered lists, and the GET endpoint signals a read. It gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over kiotviet_list_supplier_orders or when to fetch a single record with kiotviet_get_purchase_order.

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