upload_invoice

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, file size limits, authentication requirements, or what 'processing' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It could add a sentence about return values or processing behavior, but remains appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states what the tool does. However, it omits details about the processing result, error handling, and post-upload behavior, leaving 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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'file_path' beyond the schema by specifying it is a local receipt file and listing accepted formats (PDF/PNG/JPEG/WebP). With 0% schema coverage, this compensates well but could mention path format requirements.

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 uses specific verb 'Upload', resource 'local receipt file', and destination 'to Fintaro for processing'. It lists accepted file formats (PDF/PNG/JPEG/WebP), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_invoice and list_invoices.

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 use when a receipt file is available for upload, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or context for choosing this over other tools.

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