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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it does disclose the response envelope and that items are slim by default, which is genuinely useful. However, it labels pagination 'cursor-style' while the schema exposes page/per_page, a mild mismatch, and it never states the read-only nature or how large result sets behave.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape, with the cost-related caveat last. Nothing is wasted.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description usefully sketches the return shape and the payload-size tradeoff. It lacks only sibling disambiguation and read-only confirmation, both of which matter given no annotations.

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 parameters are already documented in detail. The description only adds framing around include_positions (slim-by-default items), which the schema itself also warns about; 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 (search) and resource (invoices) plus the defining capability (rich filtering, pagination). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_invoice, invoices_summary, or search_supplier_invoices, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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 implied by 'search' and there is one conditional hint (set include_positions when line items are needed), but the description never says when to pick this over invoices_summary or a report tool. 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.