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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description need not restate that this is a non-mutating read. It adds useful context by disclosing the returned field categories and the underlying endpoint (GET /Part), but says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, or rate behavior beyond what the parameters 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 compact sentences, with the core resource definition front-loaded and the endpoint reference trailing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming prices, tax rate and stock. It is slightly thin on pagination/total semantics (only hinted at by the params), but otherwise complete for a filtered list operation.

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 all six parameters (name, part_number, embed, limit, offset, count_all) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filter syntax, embedding rules, or paging guidance beyond that, 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 ('List') and resource ('parts') and immediately disambiguates the term by defining parts as 'the products and services in the sevdesk inventory,' which separates it from the contact/invoice/voucher listers among its siblings. It also names the returned fields (prices, tax rate, stock), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the resource scope is clear enough that an agent can tell it retrieves the product/service catalogue, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. For a single-purpose read-only list tool with no competing sibling, implied usage is adequate but not instructive.

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