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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating an invoice but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the output contains. The reference to external documentation adds some context but insufficiently compensates for the lack of built-in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and following with guidance. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from prerequisites.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a mutation operation (create), the description lacks completeness in areas like behavioral context and usage prerequisites, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the need for schema guidance but doesn't provide additional semantics for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Create an Invompt invoice') and the input source ('from raw IML YAML'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since there are none, and the mention of 'invompt://spec/iml/v1' adds helpful context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose beyond the basic action.

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 usage by referencing external schema guidance ('Read invompt://spec/iml/v1 first if you need schema guidance'), which suggests when to prepare inputs. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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