Get purchase invoice options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact type of data returned (VAT rates with compatible ledger accounts), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It also gives the API endpoint, offering additional transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and an API path line. The first sentence 'Get purchase invoice options' is somewhat redundant with the title, but the second sentence carries essential information. Overall, it is well-structured and wastes little space, though the slight redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (VAT rates with ledger accounts). The single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a simple options-fetching tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 fully describes the single optional 'administration' parameter with enum 'default' and a clear description. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it retrieves purchase invoice options, specifically 'the available VAT rates with their compatible ledger accounts for creating purchase invoices.' This is a clear verb+resource+scope that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sales_invoice_options, which would focus on sales invoices.

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 implies usage when preparing to create a purchase invoice by mentioning 'for creating purchase invoices,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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