ksef_advise_vat_treatment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds 'never mutates drafts,' reinforcing the behavior, and specifies the advisory nature (suggesting candidates and missing facts), which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, with the main verb 'Suggest' front-loaded. No wasted words. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices useful context that could be structured into a few more sentences without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having 13 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimalistic. It does not explain the purpose of parameters, the nature of the advisory output, or usage scenarios. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description. The tool's complexity demands more contextual explanation.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 13 parameters. Parameter names alone (e.g., draft_id, transaction_type) are insufficient for agents to understand expected values or semantics. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('advisory VAT treatment candidates and missing facts'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it never mutates drafts, setting it apart from mutation tools like ksef_update_invoice_draft.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or provide exclusions. The agent has no context for selecting this tool over other ksef tools.

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