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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the description's mention of 'safe' steps aligns but adds little new behavioral context. No contradiction found.

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loads the core identity ('merged accounting inbox'), and uses minimal but effective words. It could be slightly expanded for clarity but is not wasteful.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'safe next steps' or 'dry-run steps' produce, nor does it provide guidance on parameter usage beyond what the schema offers. Annotations fill some gaps, but completeness is only adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'merged accounting inbox' and describes the two modes (scan, dry_run) with their actions. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from vague alternatives, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'recommend_workflow'.

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 guidance on when to use each mode ('scan plans; dry_run runs safe dry-run steps'), but it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'classify_bank_transactions' or 'suggest_booking'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'read-only analysis.' It adds behavioral context by listing the types of analysis performed, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Read-only analysis,' and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, nature (read-only), and output categories (duplicates, matches, transfers, patterns). Could mention date range or output format, but sufficient for typical 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool performs 'read-only analysis of unconfirmed bank transactions' and lists specific analysis types (duplicates, invoice matches, own-account transfers, expense patterns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reconcile_bank_transactions or classify_bank_transactions.

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?

Description implies usage for analyzing unconfirmed transactions but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives such as classify_bank_transactions or reconcile_bank_transactions. No when-not or context exclusions provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool can replace an existing document ('upload/replace'), which aligns with idempotent behavior. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like authorization needs, file size limits, or what happens if the entity already has a document attached. The description is adequate but not rich beyond the 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides essential business context. Perfectly concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 description covers the core functionality and business context. Given that there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. Minor gaps exist: it does not explicitly state that attaching a document replaces an existing one (though 'replace' is in the first sentence), and could mention file size or path accessibility. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. For example, it does not clarify the meaning of 'absolute path' or the format of file_path. Since the schema already covers the parameter descriptions, the description provides no added value for this dimension.

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: 'Attach (upload/replace) a source document'. It identifies the resource type and lists acceptable entity types (purchase invoice, sale invoice, journal, bank transaction). It also provides business context (RPS requirement). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which primarily deal with CRUD on other objects or document retrieval.

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 explains when to use: when a source document is needed on an accounting entry, as required by RPS. It mentions that manual journals and directly-booked transactions also need one. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. The sibling list includes get_document and delete_document, which are distinct operations.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral traits: irreversibility per success, skipping of already-registered rows, and per-ID failure reporting. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences only; the first states purpose, the second lists critical traits. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 batch tool with no output schema, the description covers key behaviors (irreversibility, skipping, failure reporting). It could explicitly mention the return format (e.g., mapping of IDs to status), but is still fairly complete given the complexity.

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 is 3. The description adds contextual value by linking the 'ids' parameter to the per-ID failure reporting behavior, enhancing understanding beyond schema definitions.

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 with a specific verb ('Confirm/register') and resource ('multiple journals'). It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'confirm_journal' by being a batch operation, and adds behavioral details (irreversible, skipping already-registered rows).

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 batch confirming multiple journals, and mentions irreversibility as a caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'confirm_journal' for single journals) or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by emphasizing irreversibility and explaining handling of confirmed rows and lookup failures. It provides useful behavioral context, though does not cover return format or error handling.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the key action and critical warnings. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers core behavior (batch delete, irreversibility, skipping confirmed rows). Could more explicitly state that only non-confirmed transactions are deleted, but overall reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('multiple PROJECT transactions'), and the key behavior ('IRREVERSIBLE'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_transaction' tool by specifying batch operation and scope to projects.

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 mentions that confirmed rows are skipped and lookup failures are reported, hinting at behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'delete_transaction'. Missing 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's main contribution is stating 'DRY RUN by default'. This adds useful safety context beyond annotations, but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like idempotency or error states.

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 a single concise sentence without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though a more structured format could improve scannability.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, workflow integration (e.g., after parse_lightyear_statement), or how dry-run results are reviewed. Schema descriptions help but overall completeness is low.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates journal entries for Lightyear distributions, specifying types (dividend, interest, reward) and including withheld tax. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like parse_lightyear_statement.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as parse_lightyear_statement or other booking tools. The description implies a dry-run workflow but does not explain prerequisites or when to proceed with actual creation.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'DRY RUN by default' and the requirement for capital_gains_file on sells, which tempers the destructive nature. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief and does not explain the overall workflow (e.g., dry run then confirm with plan_handle). While the schema details are thorough, the description could be more complete about prerequisites and process.

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 100% schema coverage, the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by specifying that capital_gains_file is required for sells, which is not explicit in the schema property 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 verb 'Book' and the resource 'Lightyear stock Buy/Sell trades', distinguishing it from siblings like book_lightyear_distributions and parse_lightyear_statement.

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 a key condition: for sells, capital_gains_file is required for FIFO cost basis and recognized gain/loss. It also notes the dry-run default. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus similar tools like book_lightyear_distributions.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it is a pure calculator, uses caller-supplied figures, does not read the ledger, and has date-gated rates. This goes beyond annotations by explaining what the tool does not do and its dependencies.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary function. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the computation, the second clarifies it is a calculator with dependencies, and the third states a negative behavior (does not read ledger). No unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the calculation logic, defaults, and dependencies. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results. Still, the core behavior is well explained.

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?

The description explains the calculation rules for representation and donation limits, adding meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Omit to skip the donation limit' and how months_elapsed defaults). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description complements rather than repeats, but it could detail parameter interactions more.

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 computes TuMS §49 tax-free limits and the 22/78 income tax on excess, with specific formulas (representation 50€/month + 2% payroll; donations 3% payroll or 10% profit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a pure calculator that does not read the ledger, and references dependencies like compute_profit_and_loss.

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 context: it is a calculator over caller-supplied figures and does not read the ledger, so use when you have year-to-date data. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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

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

Alias annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context: it is a read-only advisory based on confirmed sale invoices, with detailed handling of various turnover types. No contradiction found.

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 information-dense and well-structured, front-loading purpose and then detailing parameters. While slightly long, every sentence serves a purpose without 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?

Given the 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: threshold value, date source, turnover classification, and operator choices. Missing only is explicit mention of the return value (e.g., boolean or threshold proximity).

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 coverage is 100%, but the description significantly augments parameter meaning, e.g., clarifying that 'real_estate_turnover' only counts when not fixed-asset disposal, and 'manual_bucket_source' avoids double counting.

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 specifies the exact purpose: checking VAT registration threshold for Estonian companies with a clear threshold amount, date scope, and sourcing. It stands out distinctly from siblings by being a specialized advisory tool.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use, explaining turnover types and operator judgment for incidental amounts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description only mentions 'requires approval' for execute_apply. It does not disclose what 'classify' does (e.g., is it read-only?), what 'dry_run_apply' previews, or the consequences of executing. The phrase 'Merged unmatched-bank classification' lacks behavioral context.

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?

While very short (two sentences), the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence is cryptic, and the second provides only mode names. It fails to earn its place by not adding value; a longer description would be warranted.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, three modes, destructive hint, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, or side effects. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 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 opens with 'Merged unmatched-bank classification', which is vague and does not clearly state the tool's primary action. It then lists three modes without explaining what 'classification' means or how this tool differs from siblings like 'get_transaction' or 'suggest_booking'. The purpose is unclear and not differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain when each mode is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., which accounts are eligible). An agent cannot determine the correct context for invocation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), so the description does not need to reiterate that. It adds context about transferring metadata before deletion, which is good. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects beyond the 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the two-step process. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly improved by breaking into two sentences for readability. Overall, it earns its place without fluff.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the key actions and constraints. It specifies the order of operations and the optional nature of metadata patching. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation) or error scenarios, which would improve completeness.

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 adds little extra meaning beyond the schema; it essentially restates the schema descriptions for the parameters. For 'patch_missing_fields', both description and schema mention 'fill only if the kept transaction still lacks those values', so no added value.

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 two-step action: apply missing CAMT metadata to the kept older transaction and delete the duplicate. It explicitly names the resources (CAMT metadata, older transaction, duplicate PROJECT transaction) and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_transaction or detect_duplicate_purchase_invoice by focusing on the unique cleanup workflow.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, and there is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would warrant cleanup.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. Description adds that it clears specific cached data (API and reference data), enhancing understanding beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but for a simple cache-clearing tool, the description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use. No missing information expected given its simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, with description and enum for 'scope'. The tool description does not add extra parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clears cached e-arveldaja API and reference data. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only cache-clearing tool. The verb 'clear' plus resource 'cache' is 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?

States explicit use cases: after changing data in web UI or before reports needing latest state. Provides clear context but no when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint:true. Description adds 'cannot be undone' which reinforces irreversibility. No additional behavioral context needed beyond the destructive nature and scope. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states action and scope. Second sentence warns of destructiveness. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does (clear audit log), scope (current connection), and critical behavior (destructive, irreversible). No gaps.

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?

No parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100% vacuously). Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Clear the audit log' and specifies scope 'for the current connection'. Title reinforces the purpose. Distinct from siblings like get_session_log or list_audit_logs.

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?

Warns 'DESTRUCTIVE — cannot be undone' implying careful use, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid, nor reference alternatives (e.g., use get_session_log to view first). Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., caching, performance implications, or what 'compute' entails beyond journal postings). With annotations present, the description is adequate but not value-adding.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a single balance figure, a structured object). It fails to provide this crucial context, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. For a computation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-described in the schema. The description only reiterates the optional client/date filters, adding no new semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('account balance') with scope ('from journal postings with optional client/date filters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_payables_aging and compute_account_dimension_balances.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states optional filters, but lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling compute tools, this omission is significant.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral details about including opening balances and outputting one row per dimension plus a total, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds useful information without extraneous text.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) but strong annotations. The description explains the output structure and relation to sibling. It lacks edge-case or error-handling info, but for a read-only compute tool this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it provides context about the tool's operation (e.g., breakdown, total). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: breaking down an account's balance per dimension with examples (e.g., bank sub-accounts). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'compute_account_balance' by noting that the total row equals that tool's output.

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 when to use this tool (for a dimensional breakdown) versus the sibling for a total. It provides context on the output including opening balances, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about how accounts are grouped (Varad vs Kohustused+Omakapital), which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, immediately states purpose and grouping. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 only two parameters and no nested objects. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally explain the return value (e.g., a balance sheet report). The grouping info helps but lacks output format details.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters ('fresh' and 'date_to') are well-described in the schema. The description does not add new information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 computes a balance sheet from journal postings and specifies the grouping into Assets and Liabilities+Equity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_trial_balance and compute_profit_and_loss.

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 the tool is for generating balance sheets but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like compute_trial_balance or compute_profit_and_loss. Usage context is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., caching, rate limits, or side effects). Parameter 'fresh' is described in the schema but not in the tool description itself.

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?

Single sentence, clear and direct. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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?

With no output schema, the description omits return value details. The phrase 'across selected accounts' is clarified by the parameter schema but the output structure is unspecified. Adequate for a simple compute tool but incomplete for agent understanding.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance 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?

Description clearly states the tool computes net position for a client across selected accounts. Verb 'compute' and resource 'net position' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_account_balance or compute_payables_aging, though the term 'net position' could be more precisely defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing its optimal usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The description adds the behavioral detail that the computation is from unpaid purchase invoices, but no additional traits beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent with 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 a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It could potentially be expanded slightly for structure, but it is already concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., aging buckets, totals by period) to help the agent understand the result. The description only explains the input and data source, leaving the output format entirely unspecified, which is a significant gap for a compute 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter as_of_date, which already explains its format and default. The description adds the phrase 'for a specific cutoff,' which marginally reinforces the schema but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 computes payables aging by supplier from unpaid purchase invoices, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compute_receivables_aging which handles receivables. The verb 'compute' and resource 'payables aging' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions passing as_of_date for a specific cutoff, which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_receivables_aging or provide any when-not scenarios. Usage is inferred from the purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds a basic explanation of the report content but does not elaborate on caching behavior despite the 'fresh' parameter, nor on response format.

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 very concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant given the tool name. It could be more structured to include key behavior.

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 simple read-only report with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or any side effects, and the sibling context is large but not addressed.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already provided. The 'fresh' parameter is not explained in the description.

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 computes a profit and loss statement for a period and explains the formula (revenue minus expenses). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling report tools like compute_balance_sheet or compute_trial_balance.

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 computing P&L over a date range, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other report tools, nor any specific conditions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond stating it computes from unpaid sale invoices, which is already obvious.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second provides parameter guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with core action, very efficient.

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 is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the computed report contains or its format. Given the absence of an output schema, some expectation of the return value would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter is described in the schema). The description adds the notion of 'specific cutoff' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema's description already offers. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Compute'), the resource ('receivables aging'), and the scope ('by client from unpaid sale invoices'). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'compute_payables_aging' which handles payables, not receivables.

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 usage guidance for the parameter ('Pass as_of_date for a specific cutoff') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied but not directly addressed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond indicating the computation source and output. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No wasted words; every sentence contributes value.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description could mention the output structure (e.g., list of accounts with totals) or that results are paginated. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 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 verb 'Compute', the resource 'trial balance', and what it shows (debit/credit totals and balance for each account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_payables_aging or compute_balance_sheet by specifying it derives from journal postings.

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 obtaining a trial balance from journal data but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., balance sheet, profit/loss). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but description adds 'IRREVERSIBLE' and mentions reversal method, providing valuable 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and key behavioral trait. 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, irreversibility, and alternative action, making it complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter 'id' is fully described in schema. Description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Confirm/register' and clearly identifies resource 'journal entry'. It distinguishes itself by noting irreversibility and suggesting the sibling tool 'invalidate_journal' for reversal.

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 states the action is irreversible and advises using 'invalidate_journal' to reverse, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Could be more explicit about prerequisites but sufficient.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description says 'lock', implying irreversibility. However, the description claims 'without changing approved totals' while the schema includes recalculate_totals and approved_correction parameters, which could change totals. This potential contradiction and lack of explanation about parameter effects reduce 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?

Two sentences convey the core action and key constraint with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 destructive tool with 3 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description fails to explain optional parameters or their behavioral impact. It omits critical details about how to apply corrections or use recalculate_totals, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is low (33%), and the description does not explain any parameter. It mentions 'approved totals' and 'approved preview' but does not link to the approved_correction parameter or clarify recalculate_totals. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Confirm and lock' and the resource 'purchase invoice'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_sale_invoice by specifying 'purchase'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (change approved totals), making its purpose precise.

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 implicitly guides use: use when you want to confirm without changing totals, and hints that totals correction requires a fresh approved preview (likely via a sibling tool). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

Description adds 'Locks the invoice for editing' and 'Reversible via invalidate_sale_invoice', complementing annotations (destructiveHint=true). No contradictory info. Could mention state changes or requirements, but overall clear.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded action. Every word adds value, no filler.

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?

Lacks output schema, so return value not described. No mention of required state or permissions. But given parameter simplicity and annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Single parameter 'id' with schema description 'Object ID'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, which already has 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Confirm' and resource 'sales invoice'. Additional detail 'Locks the invoice for editing' specifies effect. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'invalidate_sale_invoice' and 'create_sale_invoice'.

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?

Provides when to use (confirm an invoice, lock editing) and explicit reference to reversal via 'invalidate_sale_invoice'. Lacks explicit prerequisites or when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits: the API rejection message for missing clients_id, auto-resolution for invoices, and the requirement for related_sub_id when accounts have dimensions. This adds significant context beyond annotations, which only indicate destructiveHint=true.

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, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers edge cases without redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and three parameters, the description covers key scenarios (missing clients_id, dimensioned accounts). It does not explain what the function returns on success, but for a confirmation action this is often implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the sub_id requirement for dimensioned accounts and the clients_id logic. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, aiding correct usage.

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 confirms a bank transaction with distribution rows, distinguishing it from other confirm tools like confirm_journal or confirm_sale_invoice. The verb 'confirm' and resource 'bank transaction' are specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to pass clients_id (for transactions without it, especially CAMT imports) and when it's auto-resolved (invoice distributions). It explains requirements for distributions and sub_id, helping the agent avoid errors. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the sibling list is extensive.

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

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description states actions like 'resolve' and 'prepare' which imply mutation but not destruction. No contradiction exists, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads key actions, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by being direct and informative.

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 9 parameters, no required params, no output schema, and involves complex workflows. The description alone is insufficient; it does not summarize usage patterns, return values, or prerequisites. The agent must rely heavily on schema descriptions, which are detailed but not a substitute for a complete description.

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%, with each parameter having a detailed description (e.g., action enum, plan_handle format). The main description is brief and does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is informative. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Continue an accounting workflow response, resolve a review item, or prepare an approval action.' It uses specific verbs and resources, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (e.g., invoices, clients).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the sibling tools are largely unrelated (CRUD operations), so the agent can infer the tool's specialized role. The enum descriptions in the schema offer some context for each action.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context such as whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or triggers side effects like notifications or recalculations.

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 extremely short but ineffective. It merely restates the tool's name, wasting the opportunity to convey meaningful information. True conciseness balances brevity with informativeness.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and many siblings, the description fails to explain return values, scope of creation, or any constraints. It leaves the agent guessing about the tool's overall behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It neither contradicts nor supplements the schema, meeting the baseline but adding no extra value.

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 'Create a bank account' is a tautology of the name and title. It provides no additional detail about what creating entails, such as what fields or constraints apply, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_bank_account, update_bank_account, or delete_bank_account.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_bank_account or list_bank_accounts. There is no mention of prerequisites, required data, or context for invocation.

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

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'Create a new client'. With annotations all false and minimal, the description should explain side effects, required conditions (e.g., foreign_identity_attested dependency), or what happens on duplicate entries. It fails to do so.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. While concise, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not mention return values, required dependencies like foreign_identity_attested, or any additional context needed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exemplary. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Create' and the resource 'client', specifying the categories 'buyer/supplier', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_client, delete_client, and get_client.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a client versus a product or invoice. It also lacks any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a mutation that is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details, such as permissions, side effects, or required prior steps.

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 extremely brief (four words) and nearly tautological with the title. It lacks substance and does not justify its length.

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?

With 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description fails to explain what an invoice series is, how it is used, or what the tool accomplishes beyond the name.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are described well. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not leverage the description to clarify parameter relationships or defaults.

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 'Create an invoice series' clearly communicates the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_invoice_series or delete_invoice_series, leaving ambiguity about the specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or contextual clues about when creation is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Create' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authorization needs. It is adequate but does not exceed annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose. Very efficient.

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 full schema coverage, the description is too brief for a complex accounting tool. It does not explain journal entry concepts, posting behavior, or return values (no output schema). The agent may lack key context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Create a journal entry with postings') but does not compensate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a journal entry with postings' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (journal entry with postings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_journal' or 'update_transaction', though it could be more specific about the accounting context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_transaction' or 'confirm_journal'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), but the description does not compensate. It omits behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. Simply stating 'Create a journal' is insufficient for a complex write operation.

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?

Very concise single sentence. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), slightly more detail would not harm conciseness.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the resulting journal looks like, which accounts are affected, or the typical workflow context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Create a journal') and resource ('business expense paid personally by the owner'). It distinguishes from generic journal creation tools like create_journal.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_journal or other expense-related tools. The description lacks context for selection.

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

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

Description only states the action, adding no behavioral context beyond annotations. No mention of side effects, constraints, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. Concise but could benefit from more detail without being verbose.

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 (11 parameters, many optional), the description is too minimal. No mention of return value, uniqueness constraints, or parameter interdependencies.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning or relationships 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a new product/service. Verb and resource are specific, and while siblings include other entity operations, the resource type distinguishes it adequately.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_product, deactivate_product). Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

The description reveals behaviors beyond annotations: it states that vat_price and gross_price are required because confirm_purchase_invoice fails without them, and that base_* values may lock actual EUR settlement. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with creating a draft.

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, two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs important guidelines efficiently, though the dense format may require careful parsing.

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 tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main contract conditions and dependencies. However, it does not explain the overall process (create draft then confirm) or what the return value is, leaving some context gaps.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds extra meaning: e.g., 'Required — confirm_purchase_invoice fails without it' for vat_price/gross_price, and 'auto-derived from currency_rate when omitted' for base_* fields. This goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 'Create a draft purchase invoice' and provides specific details about the direct-call contract, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_purchase_invoice_from_pdf (which creates from PDF) and confirm_purchase_invoice (which confirms).

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 explicit conditions: 'pass exact invoice vat_price/gross_price' and 'non-EUR requires cl_currencies_id + currency_rate'. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_purchase_invoice_from_pdf for when PDF is available.

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

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world side effects. The description adds critical behavioral details like the 'direct-call contract' and parameter behaviors (auto-derivation, lock). It does not fully disclose all side effects but covers key aspects.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that pack essential purpose and rules with zero filler. Every sentence adds value and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (20 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the main action, critical rules, and usage hints. It lacks an explicit statement about return values and could mention when to prefer this over other purchase invoice tools, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 each parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds high-level guidance but does not significantly deepen understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a draft purchase invoice'), the source ('from extracted document data'), and the file attachment. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_purchase_invoice' (no PDF attachment) and other invoice tools.

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 rules for calling the tool (e.g., never recalculate vat_price/gross_price, currency_rate required for non-EUR, base_* parameters lock EUR settlement). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses key behaviors: cloning creates draft invoices, auto-assigns invoice numbers, and dry_run previews without creation. This adds value beyond the annotations (which mark destructiveHint=true) by clarifying the preview mode and auto-assignment.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, 15 words—with no unnecessary information. Every sentence conveys essential information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values or error handling. It covers the core operation but omits details about what the response contains (e.g., list of IDs) and potential failure scenarios, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the dry_run behavior and mentioning auto-assigned invoice numbers (not a parameter). Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('clone'), the resource ('previous-month sale invoices'), and the result ('DRAFT recurring invoices'). It distinguishes this from other invoice tools by explicitly mentioning recurring invoicing and the cloning mechanism.

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 mentions using dry_run=true for previewing, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sale_invoice, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive creation action. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether the invoice is created as draft or confirmed, or any side effects.

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 very concise with one short sentence, which is front-loaded but underspecified for a tool with 12 parameters. It earns its place but is too brief.

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 (12 parameters, 6 required, no output schema), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to mention return value, prerequisites, or potential errors, making it inadequate for effective tool selection.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 'Create a sales invoice', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_purchase_invoice and confirm_sale_invoice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_recurring_sale_invoices or confirm_sale_invoice. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false indicates a write operation). It omits details like side effects, required permissions, or whether duplicate detection is enabled (though mentioned in parameter description).

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, but could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, required fields, enums) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the overall function or common use cases, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the property descriptions in the schema, failing to highlight key parameters like 'type' or 'block_on_duplicate' that have critical semantics.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'bank transaction', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_sale_invoice' or 'create_purchase_invoice' which also create financial records.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_sale_invoice' for invoices or 'update_transaction' for modifications. There are no prerequisites or contextual hints.

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

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the reversibility detail, but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Single sentence, concise and to the point, with no redundant information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and its reversibility, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'id'. The tool description adds no further parameter clarification, so baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Deactivate a client' as the action, with the specific verb and resource. It mentions reversibility via 'reactivate_client', distinguishing it from permanent deletion (delete_client) or other client 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?

Provides context that the client can be restored with reactivate_client, implying when to use this tool over deleting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools like update_client.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. Description adds that it can be restored, but doesn't elaborate on side effects or state changes, so it's adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Exceptionally concise: one sentence that conveys the core action and a key behavioral trait (reversibility). No redundancy or filler.

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 simple boolean-state change tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and reversibility. Lacks details on the post-deactivation state, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter ('id' as 'Object ID'). Description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (deactivate) and resource (product). Mentions reversibility via reactivate_product, distinguishing it from delete_product.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like delete_product or reactivate_product. Only mentions it can be restored, but doesn't explain use cases or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description's destructive nature is redundant. However, the description adds valuable behavior: 'Fails if the account is referenced by existing transactions', which goes beyond annotations and informs the agent of a critical constraint.

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 a single sentence with a conditional clause, no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action, followed by the key behavioral constraint. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and a critical failure condition. It does not mention the return value or irreversibility (implied by annotations), but is largely sufficient given the tool's low complexity.

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% for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description 'Bank account ID'. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it does not improve upon the schema's semantic clarity.

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 'Delete a company bank account', identifying the tool as a destructive operation on a specific resource. The additional condition 'Fails if the account is referenced by existing transactions' sets it apart from sibling tools like delete_client or delete_product, providing unique context.

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 use when permanent removal is desired, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like deactivation (though no sibling deactivate exists). It provides a condition but lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or prerequisites beyond the failure case.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds context: failure when referenced and intended use case. Does not contradict annotations and extends understanding of behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value: first states action and behavior, second gives usage direction. Highly concise.

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 simple delete operation with clear annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, failure conditions, alternatives, and intended usage. No output schema, but not needed for this operation.

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?

Only one parameter 'id' with schema description 'Object ID' and constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Permanently delete a client' and distinguishes from sibling 'deactivate_client' by noting deletion fails if referenced. It specifies the verb and resource, and differentiates from alternative actions.

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 provides when to use (for mistakenly-created master data with no history) and when not to use (if referenced, use deactivate_client). The failure condition is stated, giving clear guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description correctly aligns by stating 'Delete'. However, the description does not add additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, permissions, or fallback behavior if no document exists. With annotations present, the description meets minimal expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the what and which. It could mention what happens if no document exists, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'attached to a purchase invoice...' loosely mirrors the enum values in entity_type, adding no new semantic details 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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'source document', specifying the exact record types it applies to (purchase invoice, sale invoice, journal, bank transaction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete entire records (e.g., delete_sale_invoice).

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 the tool is used to remove a source document from specific record types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the failure condition when the series is in use. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 a single, complete sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key failure condition. It could mention success behavior or irreversibility, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'id'. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'invoice numbering series', making it distinct from sibling tools like create or update. It leaves no ambiguity.

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 mentions a failure condition ('Fails if the series is already in use') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or create. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

While annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not explain whether deletion is permanent, if it cascades, or if any confirmation is needed. The description adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to provide helpful context. It earns its place for brevity but lacks substance.

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 destructive nature of the tool (from annotations) and the absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the implications of deletion, any prerequisites, or the result. It is incomplete for a mutation tool of this significance.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Object ID') and constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details or examples, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a journal entry'). It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'invalidate_journal' which might have a similar purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts where the tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context: tool fails if the product is referenced by invoices, and that the deletion is permanent. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides key constraints.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is complete. It explains the failure condition and alternative usage.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-defined. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'id' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Permanently delete a product/service' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool deactivate_product by explaining when to use the alternative.

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 explicitly states when to use (mistakenly-created master data with no history) and when not to (if referenced by invoices, use deactivate_product). Provides a clear alternative.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, required permissions, or effects on related data. The description is neutral.

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?

Extremely concise at six words, with no unnecessary information. The purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., invoice state) and what the return value indicates.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'purchase invoice', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'invalidate_purchase_invoice' by using specific terminology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., invalidate) or any prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be unconfirmed). The description only states the action without context.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, indicating the operation is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, required permissions, what gets deleted). It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency, but it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, destructiveHint annotation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when deletion is appropriate or what the expected outcome is, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Object ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'a sales invoice', providing a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_bank_account, delete_client), leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invalidate_sale_invoice or other deletion tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or context for use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds no additional context (e.g., irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects). Minimal value 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 very concise (one short sentence). It is front-loaded but lacks sufficient detail, making it minimally adequate.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description should include consequences, return values, or usage notes. It is incomplete for safe and informed 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% with a generic 'Object ID'. The tool description does not clarify that 'id' refers to a transaction ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers parameters.

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 'Delete a transaction' clearly states the verb and resource. It indicates single-transaction deletion but does not distinguish from sibling 'batch_delete_transactions' or 'invalidate_transaction'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'invalidate_transaction' or 'batch_delete_transactions'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds the matching criteria, which is consistent and adds value 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?

A single sentence of 11 words that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and matching fields, but it does not explain the return value or behavior (e.g., what happens when a duplicate is found). Without an output schema, this information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with all 5 parameters described. The description paraphrases the parameters but adds no new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Check duplicate purchase invoices' with specific criteria (supplier, invoice number, amount, date). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like create_purchase_invoice or confirm_purchase_invoice.

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 detecting duplicates before processing an invoice, but it lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so description doesn't need to state it. The description adds that confirm=true is required and that journals are drafts needing separate review/register, providing useful 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 simple tool with two required params and no output schema, the description covers what it does, a prerequisite (confirm=true), and next steps (review/register). Could mention that year is the fiscal year, but 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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters (year and confirm). The description only mentions confirm=true, which is already in schema. No added semantic value 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?

Clearly states 'Create draft closing journals from prepare_year_end_close', which is a specific verb-resource pair. Distinguishes from siblings like prepare_year_end_close and mentions review/register as separate steps.

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 states the requirement confirm=true and that review/register must be done separately. Gives clear context for when to use this tool, but does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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