invoice_issued_link_zdd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the linking action but not side effects on the documents, reversibility, or any validation/preconditions. 'Link' implies a mutation but leaves consequences unspecified.

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 one sentence and front-loads the core action, with no filler. The parenthetical 'Vazby ZDD' adds domain jargon that may obscure rather than clarify, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 covers parameter semantics and an output schema exists, so invocation mechanics are mostly available. However, with no annotations and no guidance on the relationship to sibling link/unlink/deduct tools, an agent lacks behavioral and conditional context needed for confident selection.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter semantics, but it does clarify that ZDD is an advance tax document, which helps map the invoice id/kod parameters to the operation.

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 names a specific verb ('link') and both resources ('advance tax document (ZDD)' and 'income payment'), making the operation identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings such as invoice_issued_deduct_zdd or invoice_issued_unlink_zdd, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisite state is required, or when to prefer invoice_issued_deduct_zdd or invoice_issued_unlink_zdd instead. The intended usage must be inferred from the verb 'link' and the sibling names, which is not sufficient guidance.

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