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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' repeats structured data. The description does add value by disclosing the return shape (JSON:API data, attributes, relationships, pagination metadata) and the underlying endpoint, but since there is no output schema this is thin behavioral context — no rate limits, error behavior, or result-size guidance.

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 the purpose and followed by return shape and read-only/endpoint notes. No filler, though the 'Read-only. GET /api/tax_descriptors.' pair is somewhat redundant with the annotation.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and access method an agent needs. It could go further by indicating what a tax descriptor contains or which fields are commonly filtered, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the filters object are already fully documented, including filter syntax and rejection of invalid fields. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full schema coverage but constitutes only baseline value.

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 ('List ... tax descriptors') scoped to the connected TOConline company, which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling list_* tools by resource name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, but the resource specificity makes misselection unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: an agent infers this is the tool to fetch tax-descriptor reference data. There is no statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools or when not to call it.

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