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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the response envelope and the next_skip/skip paging contract, which annotations cannot express, but says nothing about whether archive/status filters change scope or about ordering defaults.

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?

Five short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then paging, then filtering. The telegraphic style ('Proposals: name, client, status, amount') is efficient but slightly fragmented for a reader who does not already know the schema.

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 supplies exactly the missing piece: the { count, next_skip, items } envelope and how to page with it. Combined with the fully documented parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this six-parameter, no-required-argument tool correctly.

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% and most of the description's parameter notes ('pass next_skip as skip', 'pass id to read one record') restate the schema. The one genuine addition is the conceptual split between exact-match 'filters' and MongoDB-style 'query', but the schema already illustrates both with examples, so the marginal value is small.

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?

Names the resource and its characteristic fields ('Proposals: name, client, status, amount'), and 'Returns { count, next_skip, items }' plus 'GET /proposals' makes the list operation unambiguous. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like plutio_list_invoices only implicitly through the resource name, not through an explicit contrasting statement.

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?

Gives concrete routing: document text lives elsewhere ('see plutio_get_document_blocks') and 'Pass id to read one record' tells the agent to use this same tool for single-record reads instead of looking for a get_proposal sibling. It does not state exclusions (e.g. when a search tool would be better), so it stops short of a 5.

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