Reverse-charge (§13b) report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real domain behavior — nets-to-zero vs actually-payable VAT, and a separate lookalike list — but never says what happens when maxVouchers is reached (error vs silent truncation of the totals), which is the main behavioral risk for a report tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core total before the categorization detail and the anomaly caveat. Dense and efficient; the only waste is the redundant 'Read-only' closer already covered by annotations.

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 exists, and the description does carry the return shape: a total split into three categories plus a separate list of mis-booked vouchers. What's missing is the truncation/edge behavior of the safety cap and any indication of how the result is formatted or defaulted when no period is supplied (no required parameters).

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 from/to formats, the 0-100 rate default of 19, and the 2000 safety cap are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'for a period' and adds no semantics the schema lacks, 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?

Specific verb-plus-resource ('Total the reverse-charge (§13b) tax base for a period') with an explicit breakdown into three tax-rule categories and an anomaly list. The §13b/13b-specific framing effectively separates it from generic siblings like sevdesk_audit_vat, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied (period-based §13b reporting) rather than stated: no when-to-use sentence, no exclusion, and no routing versus sevdesk_audit_vat or sevdesk_summarize. The 'vouchers that look like they belong but are not booked that way' clause hints at the audit context but doesn't tell the agent when to pick this over the alternatives.

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