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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is bookkept or sent until publishing, and that the call is non-idempotent so a retry creates duplicates. This meaningfully clarifies why destructiveHint=true applies to an operation that sounds harmless, though it doesn't mention auth or side effects on later bookkeeping.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct and useful fact (what it makes, when it has effect, retry behavior), with the DRAFT status front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to say what comes back — notably a draft invoice id needed for bokio_publish_invoice — and it omits that. Otherwise it covers the essential behavior for a creation tool.

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 says nothing about any of the 8 parameters, and with 63% schema coverage plus a nested lineItems structure whose rules (itemId vs. taxRate/unitPrice/productType, bookkeepingAccountNumber incompatibility) are the main source of invocation error, the description does not compensate.

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 DRAFT sales invoice') with the draft qualifier front and center, which immediately separates it from bokio_publish_invoice and bokio_record_invoice in the sibling list.

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?

Names the follow-up tool (bokio_publish_invoice) and makes the two-stage draft→publish workflow explicit, which is the key routing decision. It does not explicitly contrast with bokio_record_invoice, so the choice between the two creation paths is left to inference.

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