Booking-account guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: output is capped and 'never the full account dump,' warning the agent that absence of a result does not mean the account does not exist — a meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with what the table is and follows with filtering and the output cap; no filler. The em-dash construction is slightly heavy but every clause contributes information.

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 five-parameter, all-optional read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering and the key output cap. It could note that unset filters default to the expense side and 20 rows, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, and the description merely echoes 'filter by text, account number or tax rule' without adding format or interaction semantics. It omits the side and limit parameters entirely; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 resource (sevDesk's booking/DATEV-SKR account guidance table) and what it contains (accounts per side plus the tax rules and rates each allows). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sevdesk_set_tax_rule or sevdesk_audit_vat, which mutate or analyze rather than look up the reference table.

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?

The phrase 'the table sevDesk validates against when a voucher is booked' implies the lookup context (checking valid accounts before/while booking), which is useful implied usage. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus sevdesk_set_tax_rule or sevdesk_get_voucher, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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