generate_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (saving the invoice to the outputs directory) and the return value (the path). However, it does not mention potential errors, overwriting behavior, permissions, or the fact that the operation creates a file, which is only implied. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place. It is succinct, clear, and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema, the description is inadequate for the complexity of the input. It does not explain the structure or purpose of the 'data' parameter, nor does it mention that the data must include issuer, client, and service details. The sole focus on output leaves a significant gap in understanding how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what data should contain or provide any context for the numerous required fields. The schema's field names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning and format of the nested data object.

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 the tool generates an invoice for a client in PDF format, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_default_values by indicating its unique output (PDF saved to outputs directory). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 get_default_values. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Users are left to infer usage from the description alone.

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