create_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new receipt is created; it does not mention authentication needs via api_key, what happens on creation, whether the operation is reversible, or what response to expect. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded German sentence that names the action, object, and key differentiator ('ohne Datei'). There is no redundant wording or filler; every word 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?

The tool has 14 parameters and 6 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only conveys the core create-without-file operation. It lacks usage context, alternative-tool differentiation, return behavior, and guidance for the many optional parameters. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the overall contextual picture is incomplete.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, including formats, required vs. optional, and enum meanings. The description adds context like 'Beleg' and example types, but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Erstellt') and resource ('neuen Beleg'), and explicitly clarifies 'ohne Datei', which distinguishes it from upload_receipt. It also gives concrete examples (Eingangsrechnung, Ausgangsrechnung, Gutschrift) that map to the allowed type enum values.

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 phrase 'ohne Datei' gives clear context that this tool is for creating receipts without an uploaded file, implicitly contrasting with upload_receipt. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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