Suggest bank ↔ invoice matches

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that no changes are made and by specifying the exact follow-up action (using another tool after user consent). This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the primary purpose and include the key constraint (non-destructive) and a distinct follow-up action. No 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?

For a simple read-only suggestion tool, the description covers the core behavior and follow-up, but does not describe return format or any edge cases. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of annotations, this is reasonably complete, though mentioning the output (a list of suggested matches) would be a minor addition.

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 coverage is only 33% (only bank_account_id has a description). The description does not explain the date_from and date_to parameters or how they relate to the matching logic. It mentions matching criteria but not the role of each parameter, leaving gaps that the schema doesn't fill.

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 tool's function: suggesting matches between bank transactions and unpaid invoices, with specific matching criteria (amount, invoice number, customer name/EIK). It distinguishes itself from purely search or update tools by being a suggestion-only operation.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only suggestions: nothing is changed' and instructs to use nula_update_invoice_metadata after user agreement, giving clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use, but the instruction to not modify data is implicit differentiation.

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