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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these by saying 'Read.' It adds specific behavioral context by clarifying that no tax invoice is generated, which is valuable given sibling invoice tools and reinforces the non-destructive nature.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a crucial exclusion with no redundant wording. The key action is front-loaded, and the negation is placed immediately after, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. The explicit 'does not generate a tax invoice' guards against the most likely misuse, making the definition complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there are no inputs to explain. Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource, 'platform invoice issuer settings,' and explicitly distinguishes itself from invoice generation by stating it does not generate a tax invoice. This sets it apart from sibling tools like auraspay_payment_invoice.

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 description clearly states a when-not: it does not generate a tax invoice, which prevents an agent from using it for invoice creation. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a broader when-to-use context beyond reading settings.

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