validate_supplier_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('validate a draft supplier invoice') without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the validation is irreversible, what state changes occur, or any side effects. The description adds no transparency beyond the basic intent, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's impact.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it immediately scannable. This level of brevity is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description leaves notable gaps: it fails to clarify the meaning of the 'id' parameter, the expected outcome of validation, or any preconditions. The lack of behavioral transparency and parameter semantics makes the description minimally viable but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.

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 has one parameter 'id' with no description, and the description provides no explanation of what this id refers to. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it completely ignores the parameter, offering zero added semantics. The only inference is from the tool name, which is insufficient for a clear parameter contract.

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 'Valider une facture fournisseur brouillon' clearly states the action (validate) and the resource (draft supplier invoice). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like validate_invoice and validate_supplier_order by specifying 'fournisseur' (supplier) and 'brouillon' (draft), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other validation tools, such as validate_invoice for regular invoices or validate_supplier_order for supplier orders. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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