propose_income

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned and that the tool checks whether the two documents belong together, but it does not clarify side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether anything is stored despite the 'propose_income' name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then lists the returned data and validation behavior. It is appropriately sized, though the long parenthetical and dense return-field list make it slightly less scannable.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a reasonable job covering the inputs, return fields, and document-matching check. It still leaves gaps around optional-parameter behavior, path semantics, and error or mismatch outcomes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the inputs are the user's invoice and/or the AT document (recibo verde, fatura, or fatura-recibo), which maps meaning onto the two path parameters, but it does not describe path format, defaults, or behavior when one path is omitted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read one sale' involving the invoice and/or AT document, and says it returns the income row. It is clear enough to distinguish a read/check operation from a write operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as add_income.

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 the tool is used when reading one sale and checking whether the invoice and AT document belong together, but it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like add_income, file_document, or income_totals. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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