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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds non-obvious behavior: an implicit server-side default date window, the 'all' override, and the fact that paging continues by feeding next_page into the page parameter. No rate limits or account/permission notes, but the defaults disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Densely front-loaded: resource definition first, then status semantics, then the default-period caveat and paging rule, ending with the endpoint. The status enum restatement is mildly redundant with the schema, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers payload shape, default-window behavior, and paging continuation. Remaining filter semantics are handled by the high-coverage schema, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 85%, so most parameters are self-documenting and the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by spelling out the next_page -> page paging contract and restating status semantics, though it adds nothing for amount_from/amount_to, client_id, category_id or direction.

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/search) and resource (received documents = expenses: received invoices, bills, internal documents) and enumerates the payload fields returned (amounts, VAT, supplier, payment status). The 'received' framing implicitly separates it from superfaktura_list_invoices (issued invoices) and its get/create siblings.

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 real operational context: without a date filter SuperFaktura applies its default period, and created_period='all' is the escape hatch, plus how to page. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use superfaktura_get_expense for a single record), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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