spraay_sctp_invoice_verify

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, suggesting it may modify state but is not destructive. The description adds cost information but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether the invoice is marked as verified) or the nature of the verification process. Beyond annotations, behavioral details are lacking.

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 three short sentences. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, cost, and usage instruction. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core action and cost but does not explain what the verification entails or what the output represents. More context about the AI verification process would improve completeness.

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% (one parameter 'invoiceId' with a basic description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating to provide the fields as typed arguments. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient information.

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 the tool's purpose as verifying invoices, with an AI component. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'spraay_sctp_invoice' or 'spraay_sctp_invoice_by_id', the mention of AI verification implies a distinct function. The verb 'verify' and resource 'invoice' are specific.

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 mentions a cost of $0.03 USDC per call and instructs to provide fields as typed arguments, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like invoice retrieval tools. There is no explicit when-not or context for selection.

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