luceed_vpracuni

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about read-only versus mutating actions, authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or what each action returns or changes. The action names are opaque and the description offers no behavioral context.

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 short and front-loads the resource name, but it contains redundancy ('Wholesale invoices' repeated, plus translation of the tool name) and duplicates the action enum from the schema. It is not overly long, but every sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 nine parameters, seven actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what each action does, which parameters are relevant to which action, or what an agent can expect as a result. For a multi-action tool of this complexity, much more context is needed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the action enum values but adds no new semantic meaning (e.g., which parameters apply to which action, date format, or UID relationships). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as wholesale invoices and translates the tool name ('VP računi — wholesale invoices'). However, it provides no overarching verb or statement of what the tool actually does with those invoices, and the action list ('uid, broj, nalogprodaje, ...') is a bare enumeration rather than an explanation of capabilities. It is adequate for domain identification but not a clear statement of purpose.

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 alternatives such as luceed_mpracuni (retail invoices) or luceed_nalozi_prodaje. The action list hints at operations but does not indicate selection context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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