create_additional_income

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about accounting categories — uncategorised expenses still affect VAT but are excluded from profit/loss breakdowns — but it does not disclose other side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the primary use case, then the most important parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain every field, but the schema fully covers parameter semantics. What the description adds — purpose, typical use case, and a key accounting-category caveat — is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly stronger with explicit sibling routing, but it is not incomplete in a harmful way.

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 the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds genuine value by explaining the business impact of accounting_category_id, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Id of the accounting category' phrasing.

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 names a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('an expense or additional income in Quipu'), and adds concrete use cases like supplier bills and deductible costs. It distinguishes itself from sales-invoice creation implicitly through the supplier-bill framing, but does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to log supplier bills and deductible costs.' This gives actionable context for selection. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as create_invoice for customer-facing documents.

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