Search issued invoices

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses default sort order, that each row carries payment status derived from UOL receivables, and that drafts and cancelled invoices are included so callers must check status. That inclusion caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the schema or hints.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core identity and ordering, then the date semantics, then the completeness caveat, then the alternative routing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 15-parameter search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant semantics: what is searched, ordering, result completeness, and sibling routing. The enum meaning of type (corrective/proforma/penalty) and amount filters are left to the schema, a minor residual 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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by disambiguating the three date families (tax/issue/due) that the schema only labels as "Date as YYYY-MM-DD". It leaves other parameters such as type enum values and variable_symbol unelaborated, but the highest-risk ambiguity is resolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search issued (sales) invoices"), gives the Czech alias "vydané faktury", and notes the default ordering (newest first). It is clearly separable from siblings search_purchase_invoices and list_receivables, the latter of which is named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use tax_date_* (DUZP) for accounting-period questions versus issue_date_* for "issued in", and defer to list_receivables for "who owes me money". Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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