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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For an irreversible destructive operation it discloses only that deletion happens — nothing about permanence, required permissions, side effects on linked records, or failure modes for invoices already sent to e-Factura. This is a serious gap for a delete tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words, correctly sized for a one-parameter tool. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it edges toward under-specification given the destructive nature.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive single-param operation, the description should say what happens on success/failure and that the action is irreversible. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to judge the consequences of calling it.

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% and the single parameter already documents its origin ("from search_supplier_invoices"). The description's "by ID" adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a supplier invoice") and scopes it to an ID lookup, which is enough to distinguish it from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_invoice, delete_supplier, delete_supplier_order). It does not explicitly say how it differs from adjacent supplier-document deletes, but the resource name carries the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus delete_simplified_supplier_invoice, delete_supplier_fiscal_receipt, or the other supplier-document deletes, and no mention of prerequisites such as the invoice needing to exist or not be submitted to e-Factura. The only implied usage is "you have an ID and want it gone."

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