create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions ZATCA compliance and notification behavior, it doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens with the created invoice. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with bullet points for parameter details, uses clear formatting, and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose before diving into parameter specifics.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description covers the core creation purpose and some parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context for a write operation and doesn't address many parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should provide more complete guidance for this multi-parameter creation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 13 parameters, the description provides valuable semantic information for 3 parameters (items structure, scheduled_on format, notify_consumer purpose). It explains the items array structure in detail and clarifies ISO-8601 format for scheduled_on. However, it doesn't address the other 10 parameters like customer_id, description, currency, or payment acceptance flags, leaving significant gaps.

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 specific action ('Create a ZATCA-compliant invoice in Stream') with the resource type and compliance standard. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_invoice' and 'void_invoice' by focusing on creation rather than sending or voiding operations.

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 like 'create_payment_link' or 'send_invoice'. It mentions the 'notify_consumer' parameter but doesn't explain when notification is appropriate versus using the separate 'send_invoice' tool for existing invoices.

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