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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that submission can queue external PEPPOL delivery and IRAS reporting for linked invoices, which explains the open-world side effects, plus a user-confirmation requirement. It stops short of describing failure behavior or reversibility.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then the conditional external workflow and the confirmation requirement. Little waste, though the final sentence is slightly wordy.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important external side effects (PEPPOL/IRAS) and the confirmation requirement. It is missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens on failure or whether the submission is reversible, which is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 60%: id, companyId, and issueDate are documented in the schema, but reason and creditNoteNumber have no descriptions in either schema or description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (credit note) and names the effect: applying it to the invoice. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create-credit-note by emphasizing application/submission, but it never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implies usage ('submit ... and apply it to the invoice') and adds a confirmation prerequisite, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs create-credit-note, get-credit-note, or submit-invoice, and no preconditions beyond the user-intent check.

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