procurement_grir_clearing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'never posts the accrual itself'. It further discloses the status logic ('cleared' vs 'exposure_present'), the unit (CHF Rappen), the source from 'live po_line counters', and the effect of include_detail. This goes well beyond the annotation to fully explain behavior.

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 dense but every clause contributes. It front-loads the core definition and uses parentheses and semicolons to pack in edge cases (integer CHF Rappen, status clearing condition) without rambling. No sentence is filler; it is efficient for a tool with this complexity.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the logical output (two sets, residual values, net exposure, status) and the include_detail behavior. It does not specify the exact field names or formatting of the response, but since there is no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to understand the result. Minor gap: supplier_ids semantics are not spelled out.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for as_of ('as of a date'), materiality_rappen ('materiality filter'), and include_detail ('returns the per-line rows'). supplier_ids is not explicitly mentioned, but its purpose can be inferred from the overall clearing context. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 explicitly names the tool's function ('GR/IR-Abgrenzung') and defines its two complementary sets (received-not-invoiced and invoiced-not-received) with residual quantities and values. It precisely distinguishes this from posting accruals by stating it is a 'pure projection' and 'never posts the accrual itself', which differentiates it from period-close tools like accrual_create or provision_post.

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 clear context: it quantifies accrual exposure 'before period close' and clarifies what it does not do ('never posts'). It does not name specific sibling tools or explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the projection/posting distinction gives sufficient guidance for an agent to choose this over alternatives.

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