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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation mutates the invoice status to 'unpaid', generates PDF and payment link, and requires an admin token. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility), what happens if the draft is not found, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but the core behavior is described.

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 description is a single, dense sentence in French. It front-loads the restriction and action, then details the effect and lookup methods. It is concise with no filler, though it could benefit from bullet points or explicit separation of prerequisites and lookup options. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and identifier logic, but lacks details on error cases, response format, and any side effects like irreversibility. For a sensitive financial operation, an agent might need more guidance on what to expect. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it clarifies that auth_token is the admin token, and that invoice_id or any of client_id/email/name can be used as alternative identifiers. It implies that at least one of these identifiers is needed, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not explicitly state requiredness, but the context is clear.

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 clearly states the action: finalizes a draft (proforma) into an official numbered invoice, changing status to 'unpaid' and generating PDF and payment link. It explicitly distinguishes itself from creation tools like qonto_create_invoice by focusing on existing drafts. The verb 'finalize' and resource 'invoice' are specific, and the scope (reserved for studio) is clear.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is reserved for studio use and requires an admin token. It also explains the two alternative lookup methods (by invoice_id or by client details). While it does not explicitly say 'do not use for creating new invoices', the distinction is clear from the purpose and sibling tool names. This is sufficient guidance for an agent to know when to call it.

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