create_invoice_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and currency, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, validation requirements, or what happens on creation. The currency note adds minor value but is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes only essential information (purpose and currency) with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description is extremely terse for a creation tool with a nested positions array. It does not mention the return value, how to retrieve the created invoice (e.g., via get_invoices_out), or any operational context beyond the schema. The schema covers parameter details but not the overall workflow.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the generic 'Prices in RUBLES' note, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'sales invoice' (with Russian equivalent 'счёт покупателю'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_purchase_order or create_invoice_in. The added currency note 'Prices in RUBLES' further specifies 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_customer_order or create_invoice_in. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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