create_issued_document

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: numbering is automatic when `number` is omitted, and the stamp-duty rule for forfettari is a domain-specific side effect most agents would miss. However it never says whether the document is created as a draft or finalized, whether e-invoicing is triggered (a separate send_einvoice tool exists), what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the schema pointer, then the two field-level rules, then the alternative tool. No filler and no repetition of what the name already says.

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 create tool built around an opaque nested payload, the external-schema pointer plus field hints is a sensible and largely sufficient approach, and no output schema means return values need not be described. Gaps remain around draft-vs-finalized state, whether this triggers e-invoicing or emailing, and which keys `data` requires — all material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

`data` is an unconstrained free-form object (additionalProperties: {}), so the schema alone is useless; the description rescues it by pointing to the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema and then highlights two specific fields (`number`, `stamp_duty`) with the exact conditional value. The other two params are already documented in the schema at 67% coverage. It still leaves required fields inside `data` unstated, so not a 5.

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 gives a specific verb ('Crea') plus resource ('documento emesso') and enumerates the concrete document types it covers (invoice, credit note, proforma, quote, order, DDT). This is far more informative than the bare name. It stops short of 5 because the sibling create_credit_note overlaps with the 'nota di credito' case it claims to handle, and the description never says which one to prefer.

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?

It gives concrete when-to guidance: omit `number` for automatic numbering, add `stamp_duty: 2` for flat-rate taxpayers above €77.47, and use duplicate_document to repeat an existing document — an explicit named alternative. What is missing is routing against create_credit_note and transform_document, both of which sit adjacent to this tool's stated scope.

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