Reports: create sums report

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), it discloses asynchronous generation, the id_by_customer response handle, and the one-at-a-time concurrency rule. The generic preface 'creates new records (receipts, transactions, postings, invoices, master data)' is not accurate for this specific report-creation tool and slightly undermines transparency, though it does not contradict 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 main content is well-structured with a bolded operation, short paragraphs, and endpoint. The opening 'WRITE · creates data — Creates new records...' line is redundant and partly off-target, but the rest of the description stays compact and action-oriented.

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 no-output-schema asynchronous creation endpoint, it covers the essential calling context: response contains id_by_customer, retrieval happens after generation finishes, duplicate creation is possible, and only one same-type report may be pending. The file/date parameters are already fully documented in the input schema, so no additional parameter detail is required.

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. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only states the report period and that all postingaccounts are included, which relates to behavior rather than the individual parameters.

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 says 'Triggers the creation of a sums report' and names the German report type, so an agent can tell this is the sums-report creation endpoint rather than reports_get_sums. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling reports_create_bwa or retrieval endpoints, and the generic 'creates data — creates receipts/transactions/postings/invoices/master data' preface is broader and slightly distracting.

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 gives clear context: the report is always for all postingaccounts, is asynchronous, and only one pending same-type report is allowed at a time. It does not explicitly say 'use reports_get_sums to retrieve the result' or 'use reports_create_bwa for a different report type,' but the constraints are enough to guide correct invocation.

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