Create Purchase Invoice from PDF

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.