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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing beyond the name. Read-only intent is only implied by the verb "search", and there is no mention of result ordering, default page size behavior, or what a result contains.

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?

The single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity is under-specification rather than concision — it omits information an agent needs, and the parenthetical translation is the only added content.

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?

A seven-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, competing with roughly twenty sibling search tools, needs more than one sentence. The fully documented schema saves it from a 1, but an agent still lacks any behavioral or routing context.

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?

All seven parameters have full schema descriptions (states, date ranges, currency, partial-match client name, pagination), so the schema already does the semantic work. The description adds nothing to it, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

"Search for receipts (chitanțe)" essentially restates the tool name, adding only a Romanian synonym. It gives no scope (which receipt fields are searchable, whether results span drafts, whether it searches across suppliers) and nothing that distinguishes it from the many sibling search_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of search_invoices, search_supplier_fiscal_receipts, count_records, or get_invoice. No mention of prerequisites, pagination strategy, or which use-cases select this tool.

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