ms_build_purchaseorder

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

The description discloses that the tool performs reads only, resolving names to refs, and sends no write. This aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also reveals the return structure (body, resolved, summary) and notes that money is already in kopecks, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: a clear opening line, then a bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does.

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?

Despite having an output schema (mentioned but not detailed), the description still summarizes the return envelope and expected fields. It covers all 7 parameters, the read-only behavior, and the relationship to creation. No important context is missing for a preview tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail, including required nature (agent), optional auto-use (organization), structure of positions (list with fields and optional discount/vat), and moment format. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 it is a PREVIEW tool that resolves names to refs and shows the exact body that ms_create_purchaseorder would send, explicitly distinguishing it from the creation sibling. It uses strong verbs like 'PREVIEW' and 'resolve names to refs', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance: use before creating a purchase order to inspect the body/summary. It contrasts with ms_create_purchaseorder and explains that the tool performs reads only, not writes. It also mentions that organization can be auto-used, offering practical usage tips.

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