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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: a new supplier record may be created implicitly during this call. It says nothing about validation behavior (duplicate invoice numbers, currency rules), permissions, or irreversibility of the write, which are notable gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious branch. No filler, though the parenthetical Romanian translation is optional and the description is short relative to the tool's complexity.

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 11-parameter, unannotated write tool with no output schema, the description covers the trickiest input path (implicit supplier creation) but leaves out required-field expectations, what 'simplified' means legally/practically versus a regular supplier invoice, and any indication of the returned result. Adequate but incomplete for this complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including the supplier_id-vs-supplier_name precedence and the discount_rate gating rules. The description restates the precedence and on-the-fly supplier creation but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 simplified supplier invoice') plus the Romanian domain term, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this from its near-identical siblings create_supplier_invoice and create_supplier_proforma_invoice, so an agent cannot tell what makes a 'simplified' invoice different without opening 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?

The second sentence gives useful conditional guidance on inputs ('Provide supplier_id when the supplier already exists, or supplier_name + address fields to create it on the fly'), which is real branching logic. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the other supplier-invoice creation tools, which is the harder selection problem here.

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