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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: drafts have no number, and the call fails with not-found when the Odoo user lacks visibility, plus the API-key/app-access requirement. Only the return-shape nuance is left thin.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then returns, then parameter selection, then error/auth behavior. Slightly dense but each sentence carries information an agent needs; no 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?

For a read-one tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, how to select the record, the draft edge case, the failure mode, and the auth requirement.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it clarifies the two parameters are alternatives ('Pass either invoice_id or number') and explains the edge case that a draft has no number, which the schema does not state.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'Read one customer invoice with its lines, contact email and status.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling odoo_list_invoices without opening either schema.

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 gives retrieval context ('Read one customer invoice') and tells the caller how to select the record ('Pass either invoice_id or number'), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never explicitly names list_invoices or states when to prefer this over the list tool, so routing is left to inference.

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