folio_match_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real substance: exact absolute amount plus currency comparison, ranking by supplier/reference, outgoing-only default, and a manual-review caveat for split payments and currency conversion. Return shape and ranking details remain unspecified.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose and the non-automatic caveat front-loaded. 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?

For a read-only matching tool with no output schema, the description covers what is compared, how results are ranked, the default scope, and the cases requiring human judgment. Only the date-range semantics and result format are left thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps amount, currency, supplier, and reference (invoice_number) and explains the outgoing-only default for include_non_outgoing, but start_date and end_date are never mentioned, leaving the required date window undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find candidate transactions matching an invoice payment, explicitly framed as candidates rather than a definitive match. The boundaries against attaching/uploading are implied with 'Ingen opplasting', though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear default ('Standard: bare utgående bevegelser') and an explicit exclusion: partial payments and FX conversions need manual assessment. It also clarifies it does not upload/attach anything, implicitly routing that to folio_attach_invoice, but it does not name any sibling tool.

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