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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description merely restates this with '(read only)'. It adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path — nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or result-size caps — despite 14 filter/paging parameters where such context matters.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero waste: the purpose and returned fields come first, then the filter dimensions. Nothing redundant given the schema does the rest.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field enumeration (number, status, customer, job, lines, totals) usefully compensates. Combined with the read-only statement and filter categories, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination expectations remain only in the schema param descriptions.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description carries extra burden. It names the filter families (status, customer, site, job, time) which maps to status/customer_id/site_id/job_id/paid_since/changed_since/created_since, but it does not clarify the id vs *_my_id duplication or the page/page_size/sort_order mechanics, leaving material gaps.

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 invoices') and enumerates the returned fields (number, status, customer, job, lines, totals), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It implicitly separates itself from the singular synchroteam_get_invoice sibling, but never names that alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Filter by status, customer, site, job or time' tells the agent what filtering is possible but not when this tool is preferable to get_invoice or the other list_* siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the filter list rather than stated.

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