create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails: '作成' (create) merely signals a write operation, which is already evident from the tool name. Nothing is disclosed about side effects, validation failures, numbering behavior, or response semantics.

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 a short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness — there is nothing substantive to structure or front-load. A single phrase cannot carry the required usage and behavioral information, so brevity here is a defect, not a virtue.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, 4 required, a nested invoice_lines array with per-line requirements (name, quantity, unit_price, tax_code), no output schema, and no annotations, a five-word description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no understanding of valid tax codes, date formats beyond issue_date, or what a successful invocation returns.

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 100%, with every parameter having a Japanese label and issue_date including a format hint ('yyyy-MM-dd'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 '請求書を作成' is the Japanese equivalent of the tool name 'create_invoice' — a pure tautology that restates the name without adding specifics. There is no mention of scope, behavior, or distinction from siblings like create_deal or create_partner.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as create_deal and create_partner exist, but no criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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