record_supplier_bill

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 ('Records a supplier bill') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens after recording (e.g., ledger updates, accounts payable impact). This is sparse for a mutating 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 efficient, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-style Args list. Every element adds value, and the format is front-loaded and scannable, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's purpose and all parameters, but lacks behavioral context (side effects, permissions) and any mention of return values. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent evaluating the tool's full impact.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by listing each parameter with meaningful explanations: 'amount' notes 'excluding tax', 'tax_code' shows default 'GSTIN', and 'entity_name' clarifies its role. However, 'entity_name' could be more specific (e.g., whether it refers to supplier or company), so it's not perfect.

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 the action ('Records a supplier bill') and specifies the nature of the transaction ('credit purchase'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_cash_sale, record_cash_purchase, and record_client_invoice, which handle different transaction 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 supplier bills (credit purchases) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus cash sale/purchase tools, but explicit guidance would improve it.

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