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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that Billomat assigns the article number, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not, however, warn that repeated calls create duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 tight sentences with the operation mode front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information: mutation type, resource, domain, and the server-side numbering behavior.

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 an eight-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key return fact (assigned article number), and the schema covers the rest. It omits behavioral caveats that matter here, such as duplicate creation and net-vs-gross price handling, leaving it adequate 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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'product or service' and 'with a price', adding no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 specific verb and resource ('create a new article'), clarifies the domain distinction (product or service), and notes the server-assigned article number. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like billomat_get_article or billomat_list_articles, but the write intent is unmistakable.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals a mutation but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that tax_id/unit_id should come from the list tools), and no mention of what to do if the article already exists. Nothing routes the agent between this and alternative tools.

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