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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of result content (state, dates, totals, outstanding_amount) and pagination. It doesn't spell out paging limits or ordering defaults, but the schema covers those, keeping it above the baseline.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is listed and returned, how to filter, and that output is paged. No redundancy or 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields and flags pagination, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Minor gaps around ordering defaults and total counts, but an agent can invoke it correctly from this plus the schema.

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 is already documented in the schema. The description only restates which filter axes exist (company, project, date range) and suggests pagination, adding little beyond structured data — 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outgoing invoices / Ausgangsrechnungen'), and names the returned fields (state, dates, totals, outstanding_amount). The resource is distinct enough to separate it from sibling list tools such as list_estimates and list_vouchers without opening the schema.

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?

It conveys the supported filters (company, project, document date range) and that results are paged, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over papierkram_get_invoice or papierkram_list_estimates, and gives no exclusions.

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