create_receipt

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that it creates something; it does not state that the operation is a non-reversible write, whether numbering/registration is applied, what validation errors may occur, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The second sentence is a compact pointer rather than an explanation, which is efficient but leaves the definition thin.

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 free-form nested payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse: it delegates the entire payload specification to external API documentation without any summary of required fields or required permissions.

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% and the required `data` parameter is a free-form nested object with no schema description at all. The sentence '`data` segue lo schema dell'API v2 di Fatture in Cloud' is genuinely useful because it tells the agent where to find the shape of an otherwise opaque payload, though it adds nothing about company_id (which the schema already documents).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea un corrispettivo') and disambiguates the Italian term with the parenthetical '(scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera)', so an agent knows a daily receipt is being created. It does not explicitly name the create/update/delete receipt siblings, but the CRUD verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of create_issued_document or create_received_document, nor any mention of prerequisites, prerequisites around company selection, or whether the document is created as draft or final. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name.

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