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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the response is JSON:API data with attributes, relationships, and pagination metadata, and it names the underlying endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return-shape and safety/endpoint context. There is no wasted wording.

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 appropriately explains the general return shape as JSON:API data with attributes, relationships, and pagination metadata. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and read-only annotations, it is nearly complete, though it could say more about what document fields are returned.

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 page, page_size, and filters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the full schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists the connected TOConline company's purchase documents. The name and text clearly distinguish this from sales documents and purchase payments, though the description itself does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools such as toconline_list_purchase_payments or toconline_list_sales_documents. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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