Create document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: iCount has no hard delete (only cancel), and tax documents are rejected without a payment breakdown. It also implicitly warns that creation may have side effects (email sending, no deletion). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second provides critical usage guidance. No fluff, no repetition of schema 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?

For a complex tool with 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral constraints (payment requirement, no hard delete, testing preference). It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema, that's a gap. However, the description is strong enough on the critical decision points that an agent can call it correctly. A 4 is fair.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the payment requirement for tax documents and the testing preference for non-tax types. It also clarifies the relationship between clientId and clientName (reuse vs. create/match). This is meaningful added value, though the schema still carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a document in iCount'), enumerates the document types, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like icount_cancel_document and icount_convert_document. It also adds practical guidance about which doctypes to prefer for testing, which makes the purpose even clearer.

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 says when to use this tool (creating any iCount document) and gives concrete guidance: prefer non-tax types (order/offer) for testing because iCount has no hard delete, and real tax documents (receipt/invrec) require a payment breakdown or they will be rejected. This is actionable and goes beyond generic 'use this to create documents'.

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