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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the status code meanings and the underlying sevdesk endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, authentication requirements, or response shape.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and filter list, then provides a compact status code legend. The closing endpoint reference ('sevdesk: GET /Invoice') is minor extra detail but does not significantly reduce clarity or add bloat.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary filters and status semantics but omits explanation of pagination, default limit behavior, count_all, and several filter parameters like invoice_type and delinquent. The rich schema fills many of these gaps, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each status code means (50 deactivated recurring, 100 draft, etc.), which the enum values alone do not convey. It also lists the main filter categories, adding useful semantic context.

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 and resource ('List invoices') and lists the main filter dimensions. It is clearly distinct from the singular get_invoice sibling by name and function, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with any alternative tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invoice or list_credit_notes. The description only states what can be filtered, not the conditions or scenarios that should trigger this tool.

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