Create received document (expense)

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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying required fields (description, entity, date, amounts) and a key validation rule: payments_list must cover the total. It also states the return value (created document). Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, and the description does not contradict them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses two sentences with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the essential requirements and return behavior.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (nested objects, many optional fields), the description covers the most critical aspects: required fields, total coverage rule, and return value. It does not mention company_id or all subfields, but the schema and annotations fill those gaps adequately.

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?

The description enhances schema semantics by emphasizing required fields for creation and the constraint that payments_list must cover the total. Even though schema has 100% coverage, the description clarifies the purpose and necessity of these fields, adding value beyond the field names.

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 'Create a received document' with the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'received document', explicitly listing subtypes like expense and passive credit note. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool create_issued_document, which handles issued documents.

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 implies usage for creating received documents (expenses, credit notes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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