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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description meaningfully enriches them: it discloses the resulting state (becomes applied), that the invoice is cancelled unless already paid, and that external PEPPOL delivery and IRAS reporting may be queued. This tells the agent exactly what side effects and external consequences to expect.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: state change and effect first, external workflow second, confirmation requirement last. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but each sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, open-world submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the resulting state, the side effects on the linked invoice, external delivery/reporting, and the required user confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (id, companyId, issueDate, reason, creditNoteNumber) including defaults and patterns. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Submit) and resource (draft credit note), ties it to its origin (from create-credit-note), and precisely distinguishes this submission step from the creation step in the sibling list. An agent can tell it apart from create-credit-note and get-credit-note without opening a schema.

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 'from create-credit-note' phrasing establishes the prerequisite workflow, and the description conditions when effects apply ('unless already paid'). It also instructs on confirmation, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond the 'already paid' caveat.

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