Pursue to a Dunning

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Dunnings are always created in draft mode and do not need to be finalized.' This clarifies the draft nature. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a creation operation. No contradiction.

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 description is three sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides endpoint mapping and a key 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states purpose, endpoint, and draft mode. It could mention that the preceding invoice must exist or that the tool returns the dunning ID, but these are partially implied by the required parameter and sibling tools.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter purpose for precedingSalesVoucherId but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The body is described as 'Same shape as lexware_create_dunning,' which is helpful but merely a reference.

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 'Create a new dunning as a follow-up to a preceding invoice.' This specifies the verb (create), resource (dunning), and context (follow-up to invoice). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lexware_create_dunning which likely creates a standalone dunning.

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 mentions the endpoint and that it maps to a documented API, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lexware_create_dunning. It assumes the agent knows the difference between a follow-up dunning and a direct creation.

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