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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses pagination (100 per page) and hard vendor rate limits (60/min, 1000/24h) with the note that each call consumes one request — operationally critical context an agent needs to avoid throttling. This is substantive behavioral detail not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its returned fields, then search modes, then paging and limits. Dense but every sentence carries load, given there is no output schema to explain the returned fields elsewhere.

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, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (code, description, type, unit, VAT code, sales/purchase prices, accounts) and covers paging and rate limits. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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, but the description adds an operational model linking parameters to search modes ('by code or name, or by modification time'), which helps the agent understand how code/search_string/modified_from/modified_to combine.

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 or search articles') and clarifies the domain explicitly as 'Products, services and warehouse items' with the underlying endpoint named. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling list tools (clients, invoices, payments, accounts).

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 search modes — 'by code or name, or by modification time' — so the agent knows which situations this tool serves. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource distinction from siblings is unambiguous.

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