beel_list_invoice_customization_options

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: it explains the catalogue is not nested under an account, returns translated labels, and that its output feeds the template_type field of a PUT operation. This adds clarity without contradicting 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 two focused paragraphs plus the endpoint, front-loading the core purpose and value-add. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first introduces the output and its fields, the second clarifies the value over the enum and the global scope, and the endpoint is appended for reference. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned (templates with code, name, description), how the code is used in a related endpoint, and the global nature of the catalogue. It does not omit any critical detail 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline of 4 for no params. It still explains the relationship between the output (code) and the parameter template_type, which is semantically helpful.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('PDF templates a NIF can be rendered with'), and explains the exact value-add: providing readable labels for template_type enum values. It distinguishes itself from customization-related tools by clarifying it lists options rather than applying or reading a specific customization, making it immediately identifiable among siblings.

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 context: when you need to display human-readable template type labels instead of enum codes, and notes the catalogue is global ('identical for every account and every NIF'), so it is not scoped to a specific account. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full explicit routing.

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