Avansni račun (otvaranje i zatvaranje)

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false, so the description does real work: it discloses that the closing path emits a refund of the advance and a final invoice, and that production calls require an explicit potvrdiProdukciju flag. Missing are reversibility/idempotency notes (externalId hints at idempotency but is never explained) and what happens on failure.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary operation, then the alternative mode and the production constraint. No filler; each clause conveys a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with a nested object payload and no output schema, the description covers the two modes and the production gate but leaves the payload contract (externalId, stavke structure) and the result of each mode undescribed. Adequate to start a call, not sufficient to call it confidently the first time.

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 50% with a nested free-form 'telo' object, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of zatvori and the production gate potvrdiProdukciju, but it omits externalId and renames the tax field ('stopa' vs schema 'poreskaStopa'), leaving the nested payload only partially specified.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource ('Otvara avansni račun') and enumerates the key fields (iznos, datumUplate, stopa, kupac), plus a second mode that closes the advance and issues a refund and final invoice. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like tezga_izdaj_racun or tezga_storno_ili_refundacija, which the closing/final-invoice mode clearly overlaps with.

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 implies when each mode applies ('Sa zatvori=true ...') and states a prerequisite for production (potvrdiProdukciju=true), which is useful. However it gives no when-not guidance, no explicit alternatives, and does not say which sibling to use when the goal is a plain invoice rather than an advance.

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