list_import_issues

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the results contain (a PDF path per item) and implicitly that this tool is a read-only listing, because the writes happen through separate tools. It says nothing about ordering, whether every item has a downloadable PDF, or permission or authentication needs.

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 scope-defining sentence comes first and is followed by a two-sentence procedure, so the structure is front-loaded and there is little waste. The workflow has been folded into the description, which adds length but each sentence does carry actionable content.

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?

The definition is adequate for a zero-parameter listing tool, and because an output schema exists, the return shape does not need to be restated. It covers what gets listed, how to follow up, and how to handle ambiguity. What it leaves out, such as ordering and what to do when no PDF path is provided, is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no argument meaning to add. The description does mention the fields to extract (supplier, number, DUZP, VAT summary, country), but those belong to the downstream tools' parameters, not this schema.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (documents the import could not read) and enumerates the three qualifying causes: missing ISDOC, foreign format, foreign supplier. That is a clear verb-plus-resource statement. The remainder shifts into a follow-up workflow rather than purpose, and it does not directly contrast with siblings such as list_invoices or sync_invoices.

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 says what to do with each result (read the PDF, then route to add_expense via pdf_path or to add_manual_invoice for issued documents), so the alternative tools are named with their selecting conditions, and it tells the agent to ask the user rather than guess on reverse charge or private use. It never states when not to use this tool, nor any precondition for calling it.

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