Audit VAT treatment of vouchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is good. It lists the types of checks performed, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or behavior for empty periods.

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, front-loaded with the main action 'Sweep vouchers,' and packs multiple details without being verbose. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but effective.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and checks. It doesn't describe return format, but that's acceptable without an output schema.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'to' and 'from' are clear from schema). 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 'Sweep vouchers and flag VAT problems' with specific problem types (foreign suppliers, revenue rules, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sevdesk_reverse_charge_report by focusing on auditing VAT treatment.

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 clear context: 'the check that tells you whether your §13b amounts will be reported correctly.' It implies usage before VAT return but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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