invoices_generate_estimate_number

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no behavioral context—no mention of what is returned, whether it uses existing sequences, or any side effects. With annotations present, a score of 2 reflects that the description is minimal and uninformative but not contradictory.

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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits critical information that an agent needs, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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—such as a string containing the estimate number—but it does not. It also fails to clarify how the generation works or any constraints. For a tool that generates a number, the absence of return-type information is a significant gap.

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%, with both altId and altType documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how these parameters affect the generated number, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 'Generate Estimate Number' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lacks specificity about what an estimate number is, how it is generated, or what makes it distinct from similar tools like invoices_generate_invoice_number. An agent would need to guess the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite the presence of invoices_generate_invoice_number and other invoice-related tools in the sibling list, there is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer this tool. The agent is left entirely to infer.

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