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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful operational context: default page size of 25, maximum of 200 rows, and the exact offset formula for fetching the next page. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return shape, but those gaps are modest given the annotations.

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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then paging details. Every sentence adds information: scope, field-name convention, paging rule, and endpoint.

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 filtered list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, page-size limits, and continuation logic. It does not describe the response envelope or whether a total count is returned, which is a minor gap for an agent that needs to know when to stop paging.

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 the schema already documents limit, fields, filter, offset, and order_by in detail. The description adds domain-specific meaning by naming account field examples (accountId, accountNumber, name) that are not present in the schema, helping an agent understand the Laudus data model.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List the chart of accounts (plan de cuentas)". It also enumerates capabilities (filters, sorting, field selection, paging), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools such as laudus_list_journal_entries or laudus_list_customers.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and paging instructions, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like laudus_balance_sheet or laudus_general_ledger. It explains how to page, not when this list endpoint is the right choice.

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