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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe non-mutating operation, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds only that entries come back "in one list," and says nothing about pagination behavior (even though page/page_size exist), default ordering, or how the `include` expansion affects the payload — gaps that matter for a listing tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose; nothing is padded or buried. The second sentence is a lightly redundant enumeration of filters already named in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 13-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the broad shape but leaves several parameters (sort, validation_status, include, with_detailed_amounts) entirely to the schema, and never mentions pagination semantics despite the tool returning a paged result set. Adequate, but there are clear gaps an agent must fill by reading 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 85%, so the schema itself documents nearly every parameter in useful detail (kind semantics, page/page_size defaults, payment_status behaviors). The description restates the filter categories at a coarser level and adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List all book entries") and clarifies the resource by parenthetical enumeration ("invoices, tickets and other accounting entries"). It is clear in isolation, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quipu_list_invoices, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which list endpoint to pick.

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 second sentence enumerates available filter axes (type, kind, period, dates, payment status, contact), which implies how the tool is used for narrowed retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus quipu_get_invoice or quipu_list_invoices), and no prerequisites or defaults called out.

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