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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds operational context the schema cannot: heavy throttling at 5 requests/minute, a 10,000-row page size, the underlying POST /purchaseorders/getPOs endpoint, and the non-obvious default that Completed POs are omitted. That is exactly the hidden-behavior disclosure an agent needs before planning a paged scan.

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?

Five short sentences, zero filler, and the return payload is front-loaded before the filtering caveats and the operational limits. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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?

With no output schema, 8 optional parameters, and an unfamiliar vendor API, the description still covers what comes back, the exclude-by-default trap, filter precedence, pagination scale, and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by documenting a cross-parameter interaction the schema does not state: specific PO numbers override the date and status filters. The remaining pagination and default-status semantics are already in the schema, so 4 rather than 5.

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+resource ("List purchase orders") and enumerates the fields returned: supplier, dates, status, payment status, costs, and line items with SKU/quantity/received quantity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling skuvault_list_po_receives, which is the one ambiguity an agent could stumble on, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete calling conditions: completed POs are excluded by default and require setting status to Completed, and po_numbers overrides the date and status filters. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the adjacent job (e.g. po receives), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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