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

The description adds important context beyond the annotations: finalization assigns a sequential number and makes the document permanently immutable. This reinforces the destructiveHint with concrete business meaning, though it does not mention permissions or edge cases such as finalizing a non-draft.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the irreversible consequence. Every phrase contributes to understanding the operation, with no wasted text.

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?

The core destructive and irreversible behavior is clearly conveyed, which is especially important given destructiveHint=true. However, the description does not clarify the optional issue_date parameter or what state the referenced document must be in, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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?

The description does not explain the two parameters. The schema documents 'id' only as 'Beleg-ID' and leaves 'issue_date' undocumented, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated by the description.

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 states a specific action, issuing a draft, and its immediate consequence: a sequential number is assigned and the document becomes immutable. It distinguishes the operation from updatable or deletable drafts, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as cancel_invoice or update_document.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Entwurf ausstellen', meaning it applies when a draft should become a finalized document. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison with siblings like send_document or update_document.

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