create_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the return format (Base64 PDF with XML) but does not disclose side effects, storage behavior, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. The lack of behavioral context is significant for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with a summary line, an explanation of the items parameter, a parameter list, and return type. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and it avoids tautology.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, no annotations, no output schema details), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, input parameters, and return format. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, empty items, and authentication needs, limiting completeness slightly.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which lacks property descriptions. It explains each parameter's purpose, the expected structure of 'items' (description, unitPrice, optional fields with allowed units), and default values for country and currency. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it creates a ZUGFeRD-compliant invoice PDF, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_pdf_from_html or fill_excel_template that produce different document types.

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 usage for generating e-invoicing PDFs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compose_document or generate_pdf_from_html. No guidance on prerequisites or use cases is provided.

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