acedatacloud_preview_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explicitly stating the critical non-mutating trait: it previews without creating an invoice. It also discloses the output scope (amount and currency). It does not address auth requirements or error/edge-case behavior, but for a preview tool the core safety property is clearly conveyed.

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 delivers the verb, the output, and the critical non-creation exclusion. Every word earns its place with zero filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential selection and invocation cues: what it returns and that it is non-mutating. It is complete enough for an agent to use safely, though it could have noted how the result relates to the given order_ids.

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 a clear parameter definition ('Non-empty order UUID list'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implicitly linking order_ids to the invoice computation, but the schema already fully documents the required input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') with a clear resource ('invoice') and a precise scope ('exact invoice amount and currency'). The explicit contrast 'without creating an invoice' distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings like apply_invoice or pay_order, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'without creating an invoice' provides clear exclusionary context: use this when you need invoice figures but do not want a side effect of creation. It gives a clear use case (previewing before committing) but does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use when creation IS desired, such as apply_invoice.

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