aruba_find_duplicate_invoices

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which convey safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as what constitutes a duplicate or how results are returned. It neither contradicts nor significantly augments the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., by adding a brief note about parameters or results.

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 the tool has 5 parameters with no explanations and an output schema that is present but not described, the description is highly incomplete. An agent cannot determine correct parameter usage or interpret results without additional context from the schema or external knowledge.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description provides no explanation of parameters like 'direction', 'date_from', 'date_to', 'limit', or 'confirm_read', leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 'Find possible duplicate invoices' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from generic invoice search tools like 'aruba_find_received_invoices'. However, it does not explicitly exclude other search or detection tools, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'aruba_detect_invoice_anomalies' or 'aruba_search_invoices'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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