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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only summaries (not full content), lists the exact summary fields, and scopes results to the connected workspace, which informs agent expectations about output and limitations.

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 two sentences, purpose is front-loaded, and the pointer to get_invoice is efficient. However, the opening synonym string 'Find, browse, show, search, or list' is somewhat redundant, preventing a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description provides enough context for correct tool selection and invocation: purpose, workspace scope, return summary fields, and a clear alternative for full content. The minor omission of pagination defaults is already handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the four parameters (page, limit, search, status) described. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for this dimension.

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 the tool lists invoices owned by the connected workspace, using explicit verbs like 'find', 'browse', 'search', and 'list'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_invoice by noting that get_invoice provides full InvoML content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use get_invoice when full InvoML content is needed, providing a clear when-not and alternative. It also implies general browsing/searching use cases through its verbs and mention of search and status filtering, giving sufficient guidance for most scenarios.

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