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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that it only sees authorized invoices and that payment links and addresses are excluded. However, it also claims bounding by due-date and total fields that are not backed by the schema, and with no output schema it leaves the result shape unspecified.

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 with the action and scope in the first clause, followed by the key exclusion. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 6-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description gives the search surface and exclusions but omits result format and any pointer to a sibling (e.g., get-invoice) for full invoice details. The phantom due-date/total references also leave an incomplete and slightly inaccurate picture.

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 the baseline applies; each parameter already has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds only a high-level grouping of customer, job, status, and payment fields, and introduces due-date/total terminology that does not map to any actual parameter.

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 names a specific operation ('Searches') and resource ('invoices'), and clarifies that it covers authorized invoices with an enumerated set of search fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get-invoice or preview-invoice, and it references due-date and total fields that are absent from the input schema, which slightly blurs the boundary.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get-invoice, preview-invoice, search-customers, or search-jobs. The field exclusions are noted, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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