luceed_mpracuni

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies read-only access by saying 'list and fetch', but does not state permissions, rate limits, whether the PDF action generates a file, or what each action returns. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists actions. It avoids waste, though the action list is somewhat redundant with the enum and could be structured more clearly.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what each action does (e.g., lista vs uid vs pdf), leaving the agent to infer behavior from action names alone. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters including the action enum. The description only repeats the action names and adds no further meaning about parameters like godina, pj_uid, or date ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb (list and fetch) and resource (retail invoices), with the Croatian term 'Maloprodajni računi' adding specificity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling invoice tools like luceed_mpobracun or luceed_racuni_predujma, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for invoices, sales orders, or calculations. The description lists actions but does not say which action to choose in a given situation or mention any alternatives.

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