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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the endpoint mapping and the note that stats are only included on request. It does not disclose pagination behavior (page/per_page defaults, max 100) or the return shape, which would matter for a 9-param listing tool.

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 with zero padding: purpose first, endpoint second. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the key qualifier about stats is 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should say more about what a result looks like and how paging works. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile and the schema covers every parameter, so the definition is workable, but the return-value and pagination gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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% and each parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the include_stats semantics ('receivable/payable totals when requested') and adds no syntax, defaults, or interplay between name/search/type_id filters.

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, vendors and other contacts') plus the underlying endpoint GET /finance/contacts, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates from the singular kledo_get_contact by framing this as a list with optional totals, but 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?

The only usage signal is 'when requested' attached to receivable/payable totals, which loosely hints at the include_stats flag. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to kledo_get_contact for single-record lookups or to the report tools for aggregate aging figures.

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