invoice_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only lists features (line items, tax, branding) and omits side effects, authentication expectations around api_key, how the generated file is returned, or that HTML is a valid output. It also internally conflicts: description says PDF while the schema allows html.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource are front-loaded. It earns its brevity, though the terseness comes at the cost of omitting useful disambiguation and parameter context.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 2 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, a 9-word description is inadequate. Missing elements include output-format semantics (PDF vs HTML), whether api_key is required at call time, and differentiation from invoicing siblings. An agent would likely misinvoke this tool on its first attempt.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it barely does. 'Tax calculations' loosely maps to include_tax and 'branding' to template, yet the template enum values and the output_format pdf/html distinction are never explained. The agent cannot understand the parameter space from the description alone.

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 and resource ('Generate PDF invoices') and lists core capabilities: line items, tax calculations, branding. However, it is slightly misleading because the schema's output_format enum also supports HTML, so the PDF-only framing is narrower than actual behavior. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling invoice_generator-family tools like inv_generate_system.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains closely related tools (inv_generate_system, inv_add_forecasting, inv_add_alerts), yet the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose among them.

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