beel_list_invoice_customization_options

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the catalogue is fixed and bounded, has no pagination, takes no page/limit, is identical across accounts and NIFs, and includes localized labels. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds one concise use-case note, a closed-catalogue caveat, and the endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned, how the values connect to other operations, response characteristics such as no pagination and fixed size, and the endpoint. Nothing critical is 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description must document. It even adds the useful clarification that page/limit are not accepted.

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 that the tool returns PDF templates available for a NIF and explains what each returned item contains (code, name, translated description). It also differentiates itself from related operations by clarifying that it adds readable labels instead of raw enum values.

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 useful context: use this to get human-readable labels for template_type values rather than showing raw enum codes. It ties the returned `code` to the PUT invoice-customization endpoint, making the intended use clear, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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