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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds critical behavior: fiscal and irreversible, one reversal per receipt, a reversal cannot itself be reversed, and a no-retry protocol with get_receipt as recovery. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded and dense: the first two sentences carry purpose and irreversibility, and the third carries the no-retry recovery. The final Számla Agent action tag is an implementation identifier that is useful for logs but not required for selection or invocation, so the description is slightly less lean than it could be.

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 high-stakes fiscal mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational constraints: one-time, irreversible, and don't retry blindly. It does not describe the successful return shape or any auth/permission requirements, but the get_receipt fallback mitigates the main uncertainty.

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 coverage is 100%, so receipt_number and call_id are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance for either parameter beyond implying a single issued receipt.

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 precise verb and resource: ISSUES a reversal (storno) receipt that cancels one issued receipt. It distinguishes this from create_receipt/get_receipt and from reverse_invoice by naming receipt reversal and its fiscal nature.

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 explicit conditions: use to cancel one issued receipt, only once, and never retry an unclear result without first checking szamlazz_get_receipt. It names the alternative tool for resolving ambiguity, so the when and when-not are both covered.

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