Pursue to a Delivery Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the formatting constraint and the fact that a new voucher is produced, but says nothing about whether the preceding voucher is modified, what happens on an invalid/missing source ID, or the response shape. With annotations carrying the mutation semantics, this is an adequate but thin 3.

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, no filler, with the action and endpoint front-loaded before the formatting rules. It is appropriately short, though the formatting sentence is arguably redundant with the schema and could have been trimmed.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutation tool with a loosely typed nested body (additionalProperties with no field-level documentation) and no output schema, the description covers what is created and from what, but omits error behavior, side effects on the source voucher, and any required body fields beyond voucherDate/address/lineItems named in the schema. Adequate but incomplete given the complexity.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the UUID semantics of precedingSalesVoucherId and the expected body contents. The description's formatting note is largely duplicated verbatim inside the body schema description, so it adds little beyond the structured data. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (create a new delivery note) and names the source vouchers (quotation or order confirmation), plus the exact endpoint. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling lexware_create_delivery_note, which presumably hits the same POST /delivery-notes endpoint; an agent cannot tell when to use 'pursue' versus plain 'create' without inference.

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 only implied by the phrase 'from a quotation or order confirmation' and the precedingSalesVoucherId requirement. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over lexware_create_delivery_note or the other pursue_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., the source voucher must exist and be in a valid state) are given.

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