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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses ordering ('newest first'), the full draft lifecycle statuses, that duplicates are counted, that the ERP invoice id only appears once confirmed, and that a review page link is included. That is meaningful context the annotations do not cover.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and ordering come before the field inventory. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative.

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 field list substitutes usefully for return-value documentation, and the lifecycle statuses make the status filter actionable. Pagination/default limit behavior is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains the 'status' filter and its lifecycle meaning, which helps. It says nothing about 'limit' (a max of 50 is encoded in the schema) or about default page size/ordering interaction.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('supplier-invoice drafts, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it reasonably from generic invoice listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with invoice_list or erp_list_invoices.

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?

It notes that the 'status' filter is optional and that the tool is read-only, which implies a filtered browse use case. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over purchase_invoice_get or the ERP invoice listers.

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