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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses pagination size (100 per page) and explicit rate limits (60/min, 1000/24h) with the note that each call counts as one request. These are meaningful operational constraints the annotation does not carry. It omits return shape details, but the field list partly compensates.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: identity and fields first, then filters, then paging/limits. Every sentence carries information, with no boilerplate padding.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields and covers paging plus rate limits, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The main residual gap is optional fetch_contacts/fetch_addresses, which are only documented in the schema.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the filter dimensions (name/registry code, id, modification time) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions fetch_contacts or fetch_addresses.

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 the resource (customers/clients) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, regCode, vatNumber, due days, discount, VAT code), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. The verb 'List or search' plus the endpoint hint (purchasesales/clients:get) makes the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from smartaccounts_list_vendors, but the subject makes the target clear.

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 filter modes (by name or registry code, by id, by modification time), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., get_client_balance for balance) and states no exclusion conditions, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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