Pursue to an Invoice

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

Behavior is well-described: it creates an invoice and can optionally finalize it. The annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) align. The description adds detail about the finalize parameter and endpoint mapping. However, the openWorldHint is true but not explained, so minor gap.

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 two concise sentences plus endpoint detail. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and context.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value details. However, parameters are fully covered, behavior is clear, and the endpoint mapping provides a hint. Could briefly mention what is returned, but still sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Every parameter is described in the schema and the description adds extra meaning: endpoint mapping, explanation of finalize, and reference to lexware_create_invoice for the body structure. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 creates a new invoice as a follow-up to preceding sales vouchers (quotation, order confirmation, or delivery note). It distinguishes from creating an invoice from scratch (lexware_create_invoice) by specifying the preceding voucher context.

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 this tool (after a preceding voucher) and implies alternative (lexware_create_invoice) for invoices without a preceding voucher. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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