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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it as read-only, and the description adds non-obvious behaviors not covered by annotations: rows without a date are kept for date filters, rows without an amount are excluded when min/max is set, the query filter is case-insensitive and applied before pagination, and responses are never silently truncated.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, sibling differentiation, parameter semantics, and pagination behavior are all covered without fluff. The structure follows a logical flow from what it does to how to use it.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions response fields (next_cursor, truncated, total) and how to use the cursor, and the purpose statement lists returned invoice fields. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and process results.

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?

All seven parameters have descriptions that go beyond the schema: date filters clarify treatment of missing dates, min/max clarify treatment of missing amounts, limit explains default and pagination contract, query explains case-insensitivity and pre-pagination application, and cursor explains opaque usage. Schema coverage is 100% and enriched meaningfully.

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 it lists invoices/quotes/credit-notes with specific fields (totals, status, line items, client, payments) and explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools list_income and list_transactions by naming the alternative tools and their use cases.

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 when-to-use guidance by contrasting with recorded income entries and raw bank-feed lines, and includes concrete pagination instructions (limit, cursor, next_cursor) and filtering semantics, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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