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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is largely redundant with the structured data. The description does add the returned field set and the limit range, which is modest extra context beyond the annotations but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and front-loads the verb+resource. 'Changes nothing' is mildly redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, amount, currency, status, buyer) and the limit bound. For a simple, zero-required-param list tool this is nearly complete, missing only pagination behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the limit range (1 to 100) already in the schema and says nothing about the 'business' parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Statement of a specific verb (List) and resource (invoices), plus the returned fields (id, amount, currency, status, buyer). However, it does not distinguish itself from the two sibling invoice tools (agenta_invoices_receipt, agenta_invoices_send_receipt) or explain the distinctions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'Returns the merchant's invoices' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. For a listing tool that is largely self-evident, a 3 is fair.

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