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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only explains what is created. It does not disclose whether the invoice is drafted or sent, required permissions, idempotency, effect on the quote, or how deposit handling works.

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 efficient sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds scoping details without repetition. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin about side effects, permissions, return behavior, and deposit handling. It is sufficient to identify intent but not to safely invoke and predict the operation.

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 description adds useful meaning for quote_id by indicating it must refer to a signed quote and that the invoice total reflects selected lines. deposit_minor is only described in the schema, and the description adds no deposit-specific semantics, so the 50% schema coverage is only partially compensated.

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 an invoice") plus a clear source condition ("for a signed quote") and scope (customer-selected option/optional lines). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling invoice creation tools such as invoices_create or invoices_createBatch, so it falls short of a 5.

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 signed-quote condition implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus invoices_create or invoices_createBatch. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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