Find gaps in recurring supplier charges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing. What the description does add is the behavioral heuristic (a supplier recurring across N months with a missing month is flagged), which helps the agent interpret results, but it doesn't disclose scanning cost or the meaning of the maxVouchers safety cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, with a compact concrete example that earns its place. The closing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted clause.

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?

With no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description gives enough for correct invocation: the detection semantics, an illustrative result pattern, and a safety profile. Only the shape of the returned report (per-supplier list of missing months?) is left implicit.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema with formats, ranges and defaults. The description mentions 'monthly cadence' but never ties it to minMonths or explains how maxVouchers limits the scan, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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: detect suppliers that bill on a monthly cadence and report months missing a voucher. This is clearly distinct from siblings like sevdesk_find_duplicates or sevdesk_diff_receipt_folder, and the worked example (March, April, June but not May) makes the output target unambiguous.

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 by the example — the tool finds missing receipts — and the read-only nature is stated. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_reconcile_transactions, nor does it state preconditions or when the tool is not appropriate.

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