upload_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the Base64 encoding requirement and that data:-URL prefixes are stripped. However, it doesn't mention error handling, authentication details, or what happens after upload (return value, ID).

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, both high-value. The first states the function and formats, the second provides the critical encoding requirement. 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 16 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core upload function and encoding, but lacks context on return values, error cases, or confirmation behavior. For a complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, it could do more.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description referencing Base64 encoding adds context, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. The description adds file format info but no new parameter-level details beyond that.

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 it uploads a Beleg (receipt) with file (PDF, XML, image) to BuchhaltungsButler - specific verb, resource, and file formats. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from create_receipt sibling, but the focus on file upload helps differentiate it.

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 implies when to use it (uploading a receipt file) and mentions file format requirements. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like create_receipt, but the context of file-based upload is clear.

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