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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, open-world, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the invoice number/payment reference assignment, the fact that a published invoice can no longer be edited like a draft, the per-call confirmation default, the 'reaches other people' caution, and the API-key access requirement.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded effectively, but the confirmation guidance is stated twice ('you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call'), which is mild redundancy that could be merged.

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 one-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the alternative tool, the irreversibility of the state change, confirmation policy, and auth needs — nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (invoice_id) is documented as coming from list_invoices or create_invoice. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource+outcome: publishing a draft assigns the invoice number and payment reference and makes it final. This differentiates it from bokio_create_invoice and bokio_send_invoice without needing to open 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Publishing does not email the invoice; use send_invoice for that') and the prerequisite state (must be a draft). The when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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