Suggest Purchase Booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds how the suggestion is derived (similar confirmed invoices from the same supplier), but says nothing about return shape, permissions, or result confidence. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and lists the outputs; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only suggestion tool with full param coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at the shape of the returned suggestion, which the agent would need to consume the result.

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 limit, clients_id, and description; baseline is 3. The description only marginally enriches them by clarifying that clients_id refers to the supplier and that past invoices are the match source, without adding format or syntax detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Suggest') and the concrete outputs (purchase articles, accounts, VAT settings) plus the derivation basis (similar confirmed invoices from the same supplier). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like create_purchase_invoice, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling 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?

It implies the context ('for a new invoice') but never states when to use this versus alternatives such as validate_invoice_data, extract_pdf_invoice, or create_purchase_invoice_from_pdf, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is left entirely to inference.

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