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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new context by detailing what the call returns (id, name, mask, next formatted number, default flag) and how the returned ids feed downstream document creation. It omits pagination or auth details, but for a parameterless read against annotated metadata this is solid added value.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covering resource, returned fields, and downstream purpose with no padding. The trailing raw endpoint (GET /sequences/index.json) is implementation detail that adds little for an agent, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies what annotations and schema cannot: the shape of the returned sequence records and their role in document creation. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination/ordering note), which are unlikely to affect correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or required inputs, and the schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object — nothing additional is needed or missing.

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 names a precise resource — document numbering sequences per document type — and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, mask, next formatted number, default flag), which clearly separates it from sibling list tools like superfaktura_list_invoices or superfaktura_list_tags. The listing verb is carried only by the name/title rather than the description text, so it falls just short of a self-contained verb+resource statement.

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?

"Sequence ids are used when creating documents" implies the reason to call the tool (fetch ids before document creation), but it is phrased as a fact about the data rather than an explicit when-to-use instruction. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so an agent must infer the workflow on its own.

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