create_received_document

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute one genuinely valuable behavioral constraint — that payments_list must cover the whole amount_gross even for simple expenses, a common cause of API rejection — but says nothing about the created document's resulting state (draft vs registered), duplicate detection, or what the response contains. This is partial coverage for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and document types before the payload constraints. The only inefficiency is the reliance on an external schema reference rather than a self-contained statement, which is compact but shifts work onto the reader.

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 whose main parameter is an entirely freeform nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. An agent cannot determine the minimum viable payload, whether the document lands in draft, or how failures manifest, and must consult external API v2 documentation it may not have.

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 50%: company_id is fully documented in the schema with its default resolution, while `data` is a freeform object with additionalProperties and zero structural documentation. The description mitigates this only by pointing to the external Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema and calling out the payments_list/amount_gross rule, leaving the bulk of the nested payload semantics to outside knowledge.

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 documento ricevuto') and enumerates the covered subtypes (spesa, nota di credito passiva, DDT passivo), which lets an agent distinguish it from create_issued_document or create_receipt. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling as an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 enumeration of document types implies when the tool applies, and the note about payments_list implies a precondition for calling it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use create_received_document versus create_archive_document, register_pending_received_documents, or create_receipt, and no mention of required prerequisites such as supplier or VAT type setup.

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