accountant_package

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does well on the output side by disclosing exactly what is written into the archive, which communicates the side effect. It says nothing about cost/volume (it pulls every invoice and credit note for a year), whether an existing file at output_dir is overwritten, or required permissions.

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 that leads with the action and then lists deliverables; every item listed is substantive content the agent would otherwise have to guess. It is dense but not padded, though the long enumeration makes it less scannable than a short lead plus bullet list.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively serves as the return-value specification by naming every file produced, including the summary report contents. Remaining gaps are operational (runtime, overwrite behavior, huge datasets) rather than about what the tool produces.

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 60%, so the schema already documents year, company_id, and output_dir defaults. The description reflects the content toggles implicitly (PDF and XML are listed as included) but adds no meaning about year scoping, company selection, or what happens when include_pdf/include_xml are false. Baseline-to-slightly-below is warranted.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — creating the annual zip for the accountant — and then enumerates the exact artifacts inside it (four CSVs, PDFs, FatturaPA XML, riepilogo.md). An agent can tell this is a bulk export/report bundle, distinct from single-purpose siblings like revenue_summary or tax_estimate.

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?

Usage is implied by 'annuale per il commercialista' — the agent can infer this is a year-end delivery package rather than an ad-hoc query. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to lighter alternatives (revenue_summary, tax_estimate, tax_deadlines_export) that cover part of the same ground.

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