list_purchase_document_numbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which cover safety. The description adds that the tool validates availability but does not explain what 'available' means, what the output looks like, or any edge-case behavior, providing minimal extra transparency.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is structurally concise, but it is under-specified and lacks detail. It is not an example of efficient clarity because brevity comes at the expense of essential information.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how availability is presented, but it does not. For a validation-like tool, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke it with confidence.

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% with the parameter 'document_no' described as 'document number to validate'. The description's phrase 'document number' echoes this without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but contributes no additional semantic value.

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 'Validate whether document number is available or not' is vague and misaligned with the tool name 'list_purchase_document_numbers', which implies listing purchase document numbers. It does not specify the resource (purchase documents) or the primary listing action, and it fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like list_expense_document_numbers.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_expense_document_numbers or list_next_reference_numbers. It only states a generic validation purpose without context or exclusions.

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