Create Invoice

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world. The description adds that the invoice number is auto-generated and defaults to draft status and today's date. It does not mention side effects like sending or emailing, which is acceptable for a creation tool. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: requirement, auto-generation, defaults, example. Includes bilingual text which is contextually appropriate. No wasted words.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers required parameters, defaults, and provides an illustrative example. For a creation tool with 7 parameters and 2 required, this is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example with clientName, items, and taxRate, and by noting defaults for issueDate and status. This helps an agent understand typical usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Create a new invoice' with specific verbs and resources. It includes requirements, auto-generation, defaults, and an example, distinguishing it from other create_* tools. The sibling list includes many create tools, but this one is uniquely about invoices.

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 explicitly states required fields (clientName, items) and mentions defaults (draft status, today's date). It provides an example, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_recurring_invoice or create_quote. However, the context is sufficient for selecting this tool for one-time invoices.

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