Get sales 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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the endpoint returns and how that output is intended to be used, which goes beyond the structured annotation data.

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 compact and informative, with the key purpose stated early and detail about usage and the endpoint path following. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'Get sales invoice options', but it does not detract from clarity.

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 low-complexity read-only options endpoint with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned and why it matters. The endpoint path and intended use case are included, making it complete enough for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a well-documented single parameter (administration) that has a constrained enum, so the schema carries the full semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage.

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 resource (sales invoice options) and the specific content returned: available VAT rates with compatible ledger accounts and VAT options. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get_purchase_invoice_options, but the sales-specific scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this endpoint to determine valid combinations of vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option when creating invoices. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the stated use case is clear and actionable.

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