unanet_generate_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and consequences. 'Generate' is vague—it does not clarify whether this creates a draft, posts the invoice, triggers billing workflows, or requires specific permissions. The agent is left unaware of the tool's impact on project data or external systems.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose, containing no filler or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values, side effects, and edge cases. It does none of this—there is no mention of what the agent can expect after calling the tool, such as invoice ID, status, or errors. This is a significant gap for an action with likely financial implications.

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?

The schema covers descriptions for projectId, periodStart, and periodEnd, but notes and includeExpenses lack explanations. The description adds no meaning beyond 'for a project', which is already evident from the schema. With 60% schema coverage and zero additional parameter context, this dimension is weak.

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 the verb 'generate' and the resource 'invoice for a project', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which generate invoices, so it is easily distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unanet_get_billing_status or unanet_get_financial_report. It fails to mention prerequisites, such as needing billable project hours or a finalized timesheet, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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