Создать счёт-фактуру полученный

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that — the created document is left unposted, most attributes are inherited from the base document, and the seller's incoming invoice date must be supplied manually because it is absent on the receipt. It does not discuss failure modes or required permissions, and the dry-run/confirm mechanics live mainly in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required basis, then the inheritance rule, then the posting state and alternative. Nothing is superfluous and the key constraint (unposted; use post_document) is stated in a scannable clause.

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?

With annotations present, all eight parameters documented, and an output schema available, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: it does not indicate how to obtain the baseDocumentRef (e.g., via document search tools) or what happens when baseDocumentEntity is omitted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that requisites inherit from the base document and that incomingDate exists only because the receipt lacks it. That explains the intent behind two of the parameters rather than merely restating them.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Создаёт «Счёт-фактура полученный»') and pins the required basis ('НА ОСНОВАНИИ поступления товаров и услуг'), so an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced and from what source. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling post_document by stating the result is unposted.

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?

Clear usage context: create from a goods/services receipt, then use post_document to post. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over closely related siblings such as create_supplier_invoice or create_purchase, leaving that distinction to the agent's inference.

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