Create PDF Invoice

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions the Basic+ plan requirement for email delivery, the ability to generate an HTML version, and the return type (PDF binary or JSON). It also explains the data.pdf configuration structure. These go beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured with a summary, detailed configuration list, and return statement. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence and the second sentence ('Generate a PDF invoice' vs 'Creates a printable PDF invoice'), but overall every section earns its place.

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 complex nested data object, the description does a good job of pointing the agent to the crucial data.pdf configuration and the email delivery option. It mentions the return types, which is important because there is no output schema. It could be more explicit about required prerequisites, but the schema covers that.

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 50%, and the description lists key data.pdf fields, but this mostly mirrors the schema's own descriptions (e.g., invoice_html, logo_url, email_invoice). It adds a consolidated view but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. The send_email parameter is described in both places, with the schema slightly more 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 the tool's function: 'Generate a PDF invoice with optional branding and email delivery.' The verb 'generate' is specific, the resource is a PDF invoice, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pop_create_sdi_invoice or pop_create_peppol_invoice by focusing on PDF creation.

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 clear context: it's for creating printable PDF invoices, optionally with email delivery. It implies when to use this tool (when a PDF, not an SDI/KSeF/Peppol document, is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Still, the context is unambiguous.

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