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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 250-per-page cap and the next_offset paging contract, plus the underlying endpoint. It does not describe the response shape, but that is a minor gap for a read 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 the resource stated first and pagination second; the endpoint is tagged on at the end. No filler.

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 read-only, fully-schematized list tool this covers the essentials: what is returned (clients of a company), how to filter, and how to page. Only the absence of any hint about the sibling list tool keeps it from a 5.

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 (cif, name, offset, client_cif) is already documented in the schema, including the next_offset paging hint. The description adds only a paraphrase of that same information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (clients of a company) and the filtering options, and the title confirms the list/search action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent oblio_list_companies sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: filter by name or client CIF when searching, page with next_offset. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no mention of the oblio_list_companies companion tool.

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