record_client_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Records a client invoice' without explaining side effects, reversibility, ledger impacts, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a financial transaction 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 a single focused sentence followed by a clean bulleted Args list. It front-loads the purpose and provides parameter details without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks details on return values, ledger interactions, prerequisites, and the meaning of 'entity_name' is ambiguous. For a 5-parameter financial tool with no output schema, it is adequate but has gaps.

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 zero descriptions, so the Args section is the sole source. It adds value with 'Invoice amount (excluding tax)' and 'default: GSTOUT', but other fields like 'Quantity of items invoiced' and 'Entity name to use' are minimal restatements. Some semantics are added, but not comprehensively.

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 exactly what it does: 'Records a client invoice (credit sale) transaction.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the '(credit sale)' parenthetical distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_cash_sale and record_supplier_bill.

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 phrase '(credit sale)' clearly indicates this tool is for credit sales to clients, providing context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude cash sales or mention alternatives, but the sibling names and credit-sale framing make the usage context clear.

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