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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the API V3 token requirement, the cursor-paging contract ('pass the reply's next_args as the next call's arguments'), and the underlying endpoint. It stops short of stating any rate limits or filtering constraints.

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 purpose, then auth, then paging, then endpoint — a sensible order with little waste. The trailing raw endpoint string is marginally redundant given the tool name but does help an agent reason about the call.

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 naming the returned fields, and it covers auth and pagination. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only list tool, though it doesn't describe default paging size or empty-result behavior.

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 name/after/before/limit are already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the cursor behavior already present in 'after'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 warehouses') and enumerates the returned fields (name, type en gros / en detail, keeper, address), which no sibling covers. An agent can distinguish it from smartbill_list_clients/list_products/list_series at a glance.

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?

The description implies the use case (retrieve warehouses) and gives the paging workflow, but never states when to call it versus an alternative or any precondition beyond the token requirement. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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