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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the operation is 'viewing only', that mutations live in the cabinet, and that owner/project-admin rights are required.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the read-only boundary, then the permission requirement. No filler text.

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 usefully sketches the returned fields and covers scope, auth and the write-action boundary. Pagination semantics live in the schema rather than the description, a minor gap but not one that would cause a wrong call.

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 project_id, status and page are already documented in the schema (including the default for page and the cross-reference to dosai_list_projects). The description mentions status only as a returned field, adding no filter syntax beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Payment requests the business sent to its clients (Kaspi)') and further enumerates what the records contain (amount, status, when paid). No sibling tool covers invoices, so an agent can place it immediately.

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 an explicit when-not boundary ('issuing, cancelling and refunding stay in the cabinet') plus the authorization condition ('Owner or project admin'). No alternative sibling is named, but none exists for this resource, so the routing information is effectively complete.

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