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

The readOnlyHint already marks this as a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context: results are suggestions only and the seller confirms tax treatment, which prevents the agent from treating output as authoritative.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds the optional invoice-specific use and the advisory caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is checked, how invoice_id changes scope, and that results are non-authoritative. Minor output-format details are absent but not essential.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain that invoice_id scopes the check to one invoice and that omitting it applies the check more broadly, though it does not repeat the UUID format.

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 check/resource: invoicing rules by seller jurisdiction, including VAT/GST, tax ID, local-currency tax, and e-invoicing mandates, plus remediation guidance. It is clearer than the tautological title, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or name alternatives.

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?

It explains that omitting invoice_id checks the seller's jurisdiction generally, while passing invoice_id checks a single invoice. That gives clear usage context, though it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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