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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect that a new supplier may be created automatically, but it omits other relevant traits for a create operation: duplicate handling, idempotency, validation behavior, and any permission requirements.

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 core action and followed by the most important conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with 10 parameters, nested line items, and no output schema, the description covers only supplier resolution and leaves the receipt's required fields and line-item structure to the schema. It is minimally adequate given the rich schema, but thin for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that supplier_id takes priority and that supplier_name plus address fields can auto-create a supplier, but these details are already present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so little extra meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('supplier fiscal receipt'), including a Romanian synonym that disambiguates it from generic receipt tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_receipt or create_supplier_invoice, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for supplier resolution (use supplier_id for existing suppliers, or supplier_name plus address fields to create one on the fly). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling creation tools such as create_receipt or create_supplier_invoice, leaving tool selection implied.

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