bexio Document Settings

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It goes beyond annotations by detailing the output fields for each action, such as numbering format, default currency, and template details, providing full behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement followed by a bullet-like enumeration of actions with relevant details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values for both actions, listing key fields. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a read-only configuration tool, this is sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the order_by syntax (append '_desc' for descending) and clarifies that it applies only to 'list_settings'. It also describes the action enum values in detail.

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 'Read sales-document configuration' and lists two specific actions ('list_settings' and 'list_templates') with detailed output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bexio_invoices, which deal with actual documents, by focusing on configuration and templates.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to read configuration) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools imply other purposes, but no direct exclusions are given.

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