beel_get_invoice_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior beyond those: the 404 response when no schedule exists, the need to capture generation_mode for the subsequent PUT, and fiscal guardrails warning about AEAT misreporting. This is substantial operational context not present in structured metadata.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then 404 behavior, then the PUT hint, endpoint, and fiscal guardrails. It is longer than minimal but each section adds value. The guardrail bullet points are somewhat vague and could be condensed, but the overall organization is effective and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers the return type, a key edge case (404), the relationship to a PUT operation, and points to docs for full details. The annotations cover safety, so the description is reasonably complete. It stops short of describing the exact return format, but the docs pointer and annotations suffice.

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% — both parameters are documented. The company_id description even explains its role as the sole context source and the 403 error behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the scheduled date and generation mode for a given invoice. It also clarifies the 404 edge case for unscheduled invoices, which distinguishes this from tools like beel_set_invoice_schedule or beel_delete_invoice_schedule. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 concrete usage guidance: read the current generation_mode here before a PUT to move only the date, and it directs agents to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools or say 'don't use this for X', the PUT interaction and the pointer to docs make the intended context clear.

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