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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required OAuth scope, which is genuinely non-redundant. It says nothing about default ordering, page size behavior, or what happens with embeds lacking scopes — though the schema covers embeds well.

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 clauses, no filler, entity clarification and permission requirement both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A read-only list tool with zero required parameters, full schema coverage and complete annotations needs comparatively little prose. The one meaningful gap is sibling routing versus sellsy_search_individuals, which an agent must otherwise guess.

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% and every parameter (embed, field, limit, order, offset, direction) is documented in-schema, including the tricky dual-type offset cursor. The description adds only 'with paging', which conveys nothing beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List individuals') and disambiguates the entity by naming what individuals are (private customers, prospects, suppliers), which is valuable in a CRM where 'contact' and 'individual' are distinct siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sellsy_search_individuals or sellsy_get_individual.

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 individuals.read' gives the access prerequisite, and 'with paging' implies the bulk-enumeration use case. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sellsy_search_individuals for filtered retrieval, leaving the choice to inference.

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