assess_invoice_before_payment

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses limitations: no independent verification unless external adapters configured, and that 'allow' is not a guarantee. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; no wasted words.

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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, limitations, and behavioral traits adequately. Minor omissions (e.g., detailed output fields) but sufficient for safe use.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds context about 'ProofJSON v1' and 'supplied_data_only' but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 assesses invoice payment risk before actions like paying or approving, and distinguishes from siblings (list_proofjson_packs, verify_proofjson_proof) which deal with different ProofJSON operations.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (before paying/approving/scheduling/escalating) and what it does not do (e.g., independent verification of IBAN ownership, sanctions). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides good context.

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