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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral value beyond the annotations: the default sort ('newest first') and the projection of returned fields. Pagination behavior around the limit parameter is still undisclosed.

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 dense sentence front-loads what the tool returns, then enumerates filters in a compact parenthetical with the enum values inline. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (scope, sort, filters) come first.

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 usefully names the returned fields, and all optional filters are covered. The one gap is the limit/cap parameter, whose default and pagination implications are not stated anywhere for an agent listing potentially many invoices.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it mostly does: it enumerates every accepted status value including the 'unpaid' shorthand, explains that client accepts a name or invoice number, and pins date_from/date_to to issue date in YYYY-MM-DD. Only the limit parameter (range 1–100) goes unmentioned.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'This company's sales invoices, newest first', plus the fields returned (number, client, status, amounts, dates). The 'sales' qualifier implicitly separates it from the purchase-invoice siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 filter list — an agent can infer that this is the tool to enumerate invoices and narrow by status/client/date. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never routes to the obvious overlapping sibling invoice_list_unpaid, whose behavior is duplicated by status='unpaid'.

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