invoice_issued_deduct_zdd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or what happens to the invoice, ZDD, or related records. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. The Czech parenthetical adds localization value without bloating the text. It is concise, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification.

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?

The schema is fully described and an output schema exists, covering parameters and return shape. However, the description lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and differentiation from similar tools. For a specialized financial operation, this is a minimal viable description, not a complete one.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself already documents id, kod, extra_fields, and zdd_invoice_id with meaningful descriptions. The description neither helps nor hinders here.

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 a specific action: 'Deduct an advance tax document (ZDD) from an issued invoice'. It names the resource (ZDD) and target (issued invoice), and the Czech parenthetical reinforces the domain term. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling invoice_issued_deduct_advance, so it loses the top score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoice_issued_deduct_advance or invoice_issued_link_zdd is provided. The description only implies the use case by naming the operation, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names.

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