invoice_issued_match_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It implies a mutating 'match' operation but does not disclose whether the payment is consumed, how remainder/overpayment is handled, or what state changes occur on the invoice or payment document.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It earns its place, though it is brief enough that some behavioral context is left for other dimensions.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and a nuanced matching workflow involving remainders and overpayments, the one-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely. The output schema exists, so return values are not a gap, but mutation behavior and alternative routing are missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including zbytek, overpay_to, payment_evidence, and payment_id. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action ('Match an issued invoice against a payment document') and identifies the exact resource pairing, with the Czech term 'Parovani plateb' reinforcing the domain. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like invoice_issued_cash_payment or invoice_issued_deduct_advance, which handle different payment-related operations.

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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives and does not state prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer use from the tool name alone, and there is no mention of related matching or remainder-handling flows.

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