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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fee auto-computation and that selection happens at creation, but omits side effects, prerequisites, or post-creation behavior, leaving the agent without a complete picture for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb, and contains no wasted words or redundant details. It earns a top score for efficiency and structure.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but lacks details on lifecycle, return values, or failure modes. The rich schema compensates for parameter detail, making it moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 each parameter thoroughly. The description adds context about fee tiering and cross-border scope, but does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a cross-border invoice,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get, dispute, fees, listing) by focusing on creation and specifying the key selection criteria (DIDs, amount, currency, chain).

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 for creating new invoices, and the sibling names clearly indicate read/dispute/fee tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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