Issue invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation locks the invoice and assigns an official number, implying irreversibility. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or what happens if the invoice is already issued.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the distinguishing effect follows immediately in the em-dash 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its main side effect. Still, it lacks a note about required prior state or irreversibility, which would make it fully complete for an agent deciding to call it.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explicitly explain that invoiceId is the identifier of the invoice to lock and number, though the singular parameter name makes this partially inferable.

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 states a specific action ('Issue an invoice') and clarifies the key effect: 'locks it and assigns the official document number.' This distinguishes it from create/update/list/get invoice siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_invoice, update_invoice, or other invoice tools. It implies finalization via 'locks it' but never states prerequisites, such as the invoice being a draft or not already issued.

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