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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains irreversibility, that the record becomes immutable and receives a number, and critically that no bookkeeping entry is created and no e-mail is sent to the customer. Those side-effect disclosures are exactly what an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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, with the irreversible warning front-loaded in capitals before any detail. Every clause carries distinct information: risk, outcome, scope exclusions, and the confirmation precondition.

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 irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: the state change, the numbering side effect, what does NOT happen downstream, and the human confirmation requirement.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already defines it as a GUID with a pattern. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource ('publish a draft invoice') and immediately clarifies the resulting state: official, immutable, assigned an invoice number. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bokio_record_invoice, so an agent can route correctly without comparing schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit gate ('Only call when the user has confirmed this exact invoice') and names the alternative operation that performs the adjacent step ('use bokio_record_invoice for that'). Both when-to-use and the nearest alternative are spelled out.

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