Find gaps in recurring supplier charges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which clarifies no write operations occur, but it does not address permissions, performance impact, or whether the tool queries live data or cached snapshots.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, an example usage scenario, and a behavioral note. Every word contributes, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details about the report format (e.g., list of suppliers, month names, voucher counts). An agent might need to invoke the tool to understand return structure.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 the tool detects suppliers with monthly billing cadence and reports months with missing vouchers. It uses specific verbs (detect, report) and a distinct resource (subscription gaps), setting it apart from sibling tools like sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_find_duplicates.

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 implies usage for identifying missing receipts in recurring subscriptions (e.g., March, April, June gaps). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the 23 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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