HALOWERK: Recompute an invoice from its line items: totals, tax per rate, discounts and ro

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing computation methodology: 'All arithmetic runs in whole cents, because adding decimal amounts as floating point produces cent-level noise' and explains formal checks like due date, tax rates, negative lines, and VAT. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

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 long and contains redundant pricing statements: 'Kostenpflichtig: 0.002 USDC je Aufruf...' near the beginning and 'Preis 0.002 USDC je Aufruf' at the end. While the content is organized with a clear summary, methodology, and formal checks, the repetition and mixed languages make it less concise than it could be.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It says 'report every deviation with the exact amount' and mentions reporting rounding differences separately, but it does not describe the output structure (e.g., a list of discrepancies, fields returned). This is a significant gap for a complex tool with 12 parameters.

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?

With schema coverage at 92%, the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning by explaining how parameters are used: 'applies line and document discounts in the right order, groups the net amounts by tax rate' and checks due_date, invoice_date, reverse_charge, customer_vat_number. It explains the interaction between parameters beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Recompute an invoice from its line items: totals, tax per rate, discounts and rounding, and report every deviation with the exact amount.' It uses a specific verb ('recompute') and resource ('invoice') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cost_estimate or output_validate by focusing on invoice auditing.

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 usage for verifying invoice correctness with details of checks performed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Since the context is clear and there are no exclusions, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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