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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It confirms the tool is a lookup, but says nothing about ordering of results, whether all templates are returned by default, or whether response items include the display name alongside the id. Adequate but thin for an annotation-covered 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the useful detail placed in a parenthetical rather than padded into another sentence. Nothing to trim.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly and to know why. The one real gap is the shape of a returned payment term, which the agent would need for a sensible selection.

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 page, page_size, order_by, and order_direction are all fully documented in the schema with defaults and the order_by/order_direction pairing rule. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the payment term templates') and adds the downstream motivation (ids feed payment_term_id on invoices), so an agent knows exactly what comes back and why it matters. It falls just short of a 5 because there is no sibling list tool to contrast against and it never says what a payment term actually contains (name, due days, discount terms).

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 parenthetical 'ids needed as payment_term_id when creating an invoice' is an implied trigger for calling this before papierkram_create_invoice, but it is never stated as an instruction and no alternative or exclusion is given. The agent must infer that this is the lookup step preceding invoice creation.

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