Create a new salesbook invoice

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: a prerequisite call to /salesbook/options, conditional requiredness of delivery_date for certain administrations, and the optional base64 PDF attachment. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 repeats the opening sentence verbatim: 'Create a new salesbook invoice.' appears twice, wasting a sentence. The remaining content is useful but would benefit from tighter editing. This is not conciseness; it is redundancy.

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 complex POST tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description provides essential preconditions (options endpoint, AT/DE delivery_date) but omits details like how the response is structured, common error cases, or how to construct the full body beyond hints. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 50% at the top level (body is undocumented). The description compensates by clarifying important parameter relationships: valid combinations of vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option must be determined via an options endpoint, and delivery_date is conditionally required. It also restates the optional base64 PDF, though that is already in the schema.

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 'Create a new salesbook invoice' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sales_invoice by the explicit 'salesbook' qualifier. The endpoint hint '[Salesbook] POST /salesbook' further anchors what the tool does.

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 usage guidance: 'Use the /salesbook/options endpoint first to determine valid combinations of vat_id, ledger_id and vat_option.' It also notes the AT/DE requirement for delivery_date. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_sales_invoice, leaving that distinction implicit.

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