List sevDesk API operations

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the catalogue size (151 operations), the pinned API version, and the fact that results carry operationIds, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the tag enumeration. The tag list is somewhat redundant with the enum in the schema and inflates length, but it does let the agent scan available resources without opening the schema.

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 carries the burden of indicating return value, and it does so by framing the result as an operationId lookup and by implying path/summary fields via the query parameter. Combined with full parameter documentation and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the downstream describe/call handoff and result shape are unstated.

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% and each of the four parameters is documented in the schema, including enum meanings for tag and kind and the default/max for limit. The description only repeats the tag enum list, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond structured data, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (search) and resource (sevDesk API catalogue, 151 operations, API 2.0.0) and states the concrete output the agent needs: an operationId. It also carves out its niche relative to the dedicated sibling tools ('anything not covered by a dedicated tool'), which is what makes it distinguishable.

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?

It clearly states the condition that selects this tool (no dedicated tool covers the resource), which implicitly excludes the many dedicated siblings like sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_get_invoice_pdf. It does not name the natural follow-on siblings (sevdesk_describe_operation, sevdesk_call), so the agent must infer the list-then-describe-then-call workflow.

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