Pursue to a Dunning

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that dunnings are created in draft mode and need no finalization, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects, but the added draft mode detail is valuable.

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 redundancy. The first sentence conveys purpose and endpoint, the second adds an important behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and draft mode but does not explain return values, error cases, or authorization. It is slightly incomplete for a create operation, leaving the agent to infer response format from the endpoint.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds minimal parameter information beyond referencing the endpoint usage of precedingSalesVoucherId. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Create a new dunning as a follow-up to a preceding invoice'. It specifies the resource (dunning), verb (create), and relationship (follow-up to invoice). The endpoint is documented, and the distinction from sibling 'pursue_*' tools is clear because each targets a different document type.

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 indicates when to use the tool (after an invoice) and mentions that dunnings are created in draft mode and don't need finalization. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list provides enough context to differentiate. The endpoint reference adds practical guidance.

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