invoice_create

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('create') but does not mention side effects (e.g., order status changes), required permissions, idempotency, or error handling. The example shows a successful call, but no failure scenarios are described.

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 structured with a clear first sentence, a Parameters section, and an example. It is not overly long, but the parameter details could be more concise if embedded inline. The example is helpful.

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 tool creating an invoice with a complex JSON parameter, the description covers the main fields. However, it does not describe the return value (despite an output schema existing) and lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., order must exist). The absence of behavioral transparency also detracts from completeness.

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% coverage, so the description compensates by listing key fields (orderId, number, date, series, dueDate) and providing an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though not all possible fields or exact formatting rules are detailed.

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 'Create (register) an invoice for an order.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('invoice for an order'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'invoice_cancel' and 'invoice_generate'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include invoice_cancel and invoice_generate, but the description does not explain when to register vs. generate vs. cancel an invoice.

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