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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that fields combine with AND and identifies the underlying BY_FIELDS policy, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or return ordering beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description is tight and front-loaded: scope and search semantics come first, endpoint metadata last. Every sentence carries information relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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 seven-parameter read-only search tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, search semantics, and the AND constraint. It is nearly complete, with only minor omitted details such as how empty results or paging are surfaced.

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%, so parameter definitions are already documented. The description adds a meaningful constraint not expressed in the schema: at least one of document_id, number, nip, or guid must be supplied, and multiple such fields are ANDed together.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('documents'), plus the scope 'of one company by field'. It implicitly distinguishes field-based search from sibling list/get-by-ID tools, though it does not name 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?

It states that at least one search field is required and that multiple fields combine with AND, which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over saldeo_list_document_ids or saldeo_get_documents_by_ids, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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