Approve Supplier Invoice for Payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, signaling a write operation. The description adds value by explaining the outcome ('marks it ready for payment processing') and the return value (confirmation). It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the provided context goes beyond the annotation basics.

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 short and well-structured, with a clear opening statement, a brief explanation of the effect, and a compact Args/Returns layout. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, its consequence, parameters, and return value. It doesn't mention error scenarios or status prerequisites, but these are not critical for understanding the core function.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. It adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 approves a supplier invoice for payment, using a specific verb ('approve') and resource ('supplier invoice'). It also clarifies the consequence ('marks it ready for payment processing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel, credit, or bookkeep.

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 by stating the action, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., bookkeep_invoice or credit_invoice) or any prerequisites like invoice status. There are no exclusions or conditions given, so it offers only implied context.

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