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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds useful context by enumerating the fields returned (important since there is no output schema) and the underlying endpoint. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters, nor about auth or result limits.

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 returned fields, with the endpoint last as supporting context. No wasted words, though the filter sentence partially duplicates schema information.

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 13-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and what it can filter on, and gives the endpoint for reference. The main gap is pagination semantics, but the schema's page/per_page descriptions largely compensate.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that due-date and amount filters exist. It adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail (e.g., how status_id comma lists or date range pairing work) beyond what the schema states.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ("List sales invoices") plus the payload it returns (contact, dates, amounts, status), which separates it from kledo_get_invoice on naming alone. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Mentions that due-date and amount filters are supported, which implies browsing/filtering use, but never says when to use this versus kledo_get_invoice or kledo_list_purchase_invoices. Usage must be inferred from the name and filter mentions.

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