invoices_generate_invoice_number

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations; it does not explain that generating a number is side-effect-free or how it behaves. It does not contradict the annotations, so this is not a contradiction, but it adds no value.

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 phrase, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or additional information. It is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; it does not help the agent understand 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?

The tool has optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, but the description is still inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, when to call it, or what the returned invoice number represents. Even for a simple tool, the description should provide some context beyond the name.

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%—both altId and altType have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Invoice Number' is a tautology—it merely restates the tool name without providing any additional meaning. It does not specify what the operation does, what resources are involved, or how it differs from siblings like invoices_generate_estimate_number.

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 tool versus alternatives. No mention of contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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