preview-invoiceCalculates a deterministic invoice preview without saving, charging, sending, or creating an invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | Invoice line items. | |
| tax_mode | No | ||
| coupon_code | No | ||
| customer_id | No | Resolved customer ID; required for an invoice preview. | |
| tax_rate_id | No | ||
| document_discount_type | No | ||
| document_discount_value | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds specific behavioral traits: 'deterministic' and a detailed list of omitted actions (save, charge, send, create). This goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what side effects are avoided, which is valuable context.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists exclusions concisely. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to indicate what the preview contains (e.g., totals, tax breakdown) or how the inputs affect the result. The minimal text does not give an agent enough to predict the outcome or construct valid input, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 29%, and the description provides zero insight into parameters like items, tax_mode, coupon_code, or tax_rate_id. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents without meaning for most fields.
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?
Clearly states the specific verb 'Calculates' and resource 'invoice preview', and explicitly lists what it does not do (saving, charging, sending, creating). This differentiates it from other preview tools and establishes its role as a pure computation tool.
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 usage when a non-persistent invoice preview is needed, but it does not mention alternatives (e.g., preview-quote) or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It excludes side effects but does not compare with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.