spraay_sctp_invoice

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and no destructive hint. The description adds cost details, which is useful, but lacks disclosure of side effects, success/failure behavior, or asynchronous nature. It meets a baseline but does not go beyond annotations significantly.

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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, cost, and basic instruction. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.

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 and multiple related siblings, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., valid poId/supplierId), or any workflow context. It is insufficient for a complex submission 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a descriptive label. However, the descriptions in the schema are minimal ('poId parameter', etc.), and the tool description adds no further semantics beyond instructing to 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments.' No additional meaning is provided.

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 states 'Submit invoice' which is a clear verb+resource indicating the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like spraay_invoice_create or other invoice-related tools, missing an opportunity to specify scope.

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 cost information ($0.02 USDC per call) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spraay_sctp_pay or spraay_sctp_invoice_by_id. No when/why/when-not context is given.

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