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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' plus the concrete endpoint GET /api/commercial_sales_receipts. It also discloses the response envelope (JSON:API data, attributes, relationships, pagination metadata), which annotations do not cover.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by return shape and read-only/endpoint facts. No filler or repetition.

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 sketching the return structure (JSON:API data, attributes, relationships, pagination) and the endpoint. It stops short of describing error behavior or filter-mismatch handling, but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool 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 100%, so page, page_size and filters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning pagination metadata, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') + resource ('sales receipts') scoped to the connected TOConline company, which cleanly separates it from the singular toconline_get_sales_receipt sibling. It does not explicitly name competing list tools (e.g. toconline_list_sales_documents) but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as toconline_get_sales_receipt for a single record or toconline_list_sales_documents. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb 'List'; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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