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 underlying endpoint and the returned field set, but says nothing about pagination behavior (deferred to schema) or result ordering, so it adds only modest context beyond structured data.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the resource and scope before the endpoint reference. No 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?

For a read-only list tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations, the description is essentially complete: it states scope and the fields returned. Lacking only explicit sibling routing and pagination notes, both partly covered elsewhere.

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 limit, offset, and company_program_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (sales invoices), plus meaningful scope: only invoices marked for export, for one company, with the fields returned enumerated (number, dates, contractor, line items, amounts). This separates it from saldeo_list_invoice_ids (IDs only) and saldeo_get_invoices_by_ids, though it does not name those siblings 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The 'marked for export' scope implies a use case, but an agent is left to infer when this beats saldeo_list_invoice_ids or saldeo_get_invoices_by_ids. No prerequisites beyond company id.

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