beel_issue_invoice

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavior: irreversibility, asynchronous PDF/VeriFactu submission, and that a 200 only means accepted, not registered with AEAT. It also flags fiscal guardrails with resource pointers. This goes well beyond the structured fields and preempts common misuse.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then the async caveat, then the endpoint, then fiscal guardrails as a warning block. Every sentence carries substantial information; the use of bullet points for guardrails improves scannability. Despite its length, it is tightly packed with essential facts and no filler.

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?

Given the complexity (irreversibility, async behavior, fiscal obligations) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it does, how to handle failure, why it may not reach AEAT, and where to find exhaustive rules. The parameter schema handles all argument details, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (company_id, invoice_id, wait_for_pdf, idempotency_key, attach_source_invoices) are already fully documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Finalizes a draft invoice of this company: assigns its definitive number from the configured series and makes it immutable.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like beel_void_invoice and beel_create_corrective_invoice by stating its exact role and irreversibility. The purpose could not be misread.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it (on a draft invoice) and points to guardrails for when an invoice can still be changed and what to do once it cannot. It also mentions that PDF and VeriFactu submission are asynchronous, setting expectations for the call. It directs to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules, giving a clear escalation path. Alternative operations (corrective invoice or void) are named implicitly.

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