Create a new sales invoice

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about prerequisites and line types, but it does not disclose response behavior, error scenarios, or permission needs. The guidance to call an options endpoint first is a useful behavioral nuance, but overall the description does not go beyond what annotations and common sense imply for a create operation.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it repeats 'Create a new sales invoice.' twice in consecutive sentences. The other sentences carry relevant operational details, but the redundancy wastes space and slightly undermines the efficiency.

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 (nested line items, many validation rules) and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It covers key prerequisites and line structure but omits what the response will contain (e.g., the created invoice object or errors). The rich schema compensates for much of the payload detail, so this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 is detailed with per-property descriptions, covering the body object thoroughly. The description adds high-value semantic guidance: the distinction between regular and info lines, and the mandatory delivery_date for AT/DE administrations. It also points to the options endpoint to resolve valid parameter combinations, which directly aids parameter selection beyond schema definitions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new sales invoice.' It distinguishes itself from sibling invoice tools (e.g., create_purchase_invoice) and related order/quotation tools by explicitly naming the sales invoice resource. The additional endpoint reference reinforces the tool's 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?

The description provides concrete pre-usage guidance: call /invoices/sales/options first to determine valid vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option combinations. It also notes country-specific requirements for AT/DE administrations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., create_purchase_invoice), so the usage context is clear but not fully exclusive.

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