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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the required 'estimates.read' scope — plus that results are paged, but says nothing about result count limits, default page size trade-offs, or what happens on expired cursors beyond what the schema states.

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, the core action and the access requirement front-loaded ahead of any secondary detail. Zero 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 six-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a precondition stated, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the missing routing versus the search_estimates sibling, which matters given the sibling set.

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%, including detailed guidance on the offset cursor and embed/field semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes paging and adds no parameter meaning beyond it; 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 and resource ('List estimates') and disambiguates the domain term by adding '(quotes)', plus a paging note. It does not differentiate from the closely related siblings sellsy_search_estimates and sellsy_get_estimate.

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?

'Needs estimates.read' gives a clear prerequisite scope, but there is no guidance on when to call this instead of sellsy_search_estimates or sellsy_get_estimate, and no mention of supported filtering.

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