Create document

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that Oblio has no draft state (document is issued immediately) and advising use of an idempotencyKey to prevent double-issue. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent. However, it does not detail return format or error conditions, so a score of 4 is fitting.

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 concise with three sentences: first states the purpose, second outlines required inputs, third highlights critical behavioral notes. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and document types. Excellent structure.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects, many fields) and lack of output schema, the description is relatively brief. It covers the core purpose and key caveats (no drafts, idempotency) but omits return value expectations, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., company configuration), and how to use referenceDocument. The schema itself is well-documented, but the description could be more complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the key components ('client, series, line items, dates') but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The idempotencyKey mention is helpful but within the description. The score remains 3.

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 action ('Issue a new fiscal document') and lists the specific document types (invoice, proforma, notice). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_einvoice', which may be confusing. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.

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 creating fiscal documents in Oblio, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'create_einvoice'. The note about no draft state and idempotency is behavioral rather than usage context. The guidance is minimal, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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