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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /CommunicationWay), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about pagination behaviour, total counts, or volume characteristics that the limit/offset/count_all params imply.

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 with the resource definition front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is compact and informative rather than wasteful, though it is not strictly necessary.

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, no-required-param list tool with fully documented parameters, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, so the description could optionally say what a returned record contains, but the omissions are minor.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum, limit bounds, and paging semantics; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'optionally for one contact' only restates what contact_id's schema description already says, adding no new meaning.

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 ('communication ways'), then defines the resource with parenthetical examples (emails, phones, mobiles, websites), so an agent knows exactly what entities come back. It does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, and its relation to sevdesk_add_communication_way is left implicit.

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?

'optionally for one contact' implies the two usage modes: list everything, or scope to a single contact. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the write counterpart (sevdesk_add_communication_way) or of sevdesk_get_contact as an alternative path to contact data.

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