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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds that results are paged and identifies the data fields returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the word 'Paged' or any access constraints.

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 filler. The resource and returned data are front-loaded, and the paging note is placed at the end without disrupting clarity.

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 list tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the paged nature. It is nearly complete, though it could note whether all companies are returned or whether any implicit filtering applies.

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 the four parameters (page, page_size, order_by, order_direction) are fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'Paged' and adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is baseline 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('contacts (companies: customers and suppliers)'), and it names the fields included (address, VAT id, contact data). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling papierkram_list_persons or papierkram_get_company.

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 context is the word 'Paged.' There is no guidance on when to use this list tool versus papierkram_get_company for a single company, or versus papierkram_list_persons for person contacts. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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