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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream endpoint reference and a summary of returned fields, but says nothing about volume, ordering, or pagination behavior (which lives only in the 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scoped to one company. The trailing endpoint citation ('GET /api/xml/3.0/contractor/list') is developer reference rather than agent-facing guidance, but it is short and costs little.

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 lists the fields the reply contains (names, NIP, address, bank accounts, e-mails, payment days), which is the main thing an agent needs to know. Pagination details are covered by the schema; only ordering and result-size expectations are missing.

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 company_program_id, limit and offset are fully documented in the schema, including the paging.next_offset hint. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (contractors = suppliers and customers) scoped to one company, and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like saldeo_list_companies, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers you list contractors for a given company_program_id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over saldeo_search_documents or saldeo_list_companies, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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