Get salesbook options

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint method (GET) and the nature of the data returned, which is consistent with the annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or response format.

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 and well-structured: a one-line title (slightly repetitive with the tool name), a useful explanatory sentence, and the endpoint reference. There is minimal waste, though the first line could be merged but is acceptable.

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 simple, read-only options tool with one optional parameter and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool returns. No output schema exists, but the description outlines the content (VAT rates, ledger accounts, VAT options), making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear enum and description for 'administration'. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but it is not needed since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 (Get) and a specific resource (salesbook options) and elaborates on what is returned: VAT rates with compatible ledger accounts and VAT options. This sufficiently distinguishes it from similar option-fetching tools like get_sales_invoice_options or get_purchase_invoice_options.

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 the tool is used when needing salesbook invoice configuration options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context for selection among the many option-fetching siblings.

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