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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description adds real operational context: a 100-invoice page cap, newest-first ordering, permission/company visibility scope, the draft-has-no-number quirk, and the Cotlet API key requirement. It stops short of rate limits or latency, but the additive disclosure is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the six sentences are dense with distinct facts (return fields, ordering, drafts, pagination, scope, auth) rather than filler. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries information.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return shape (number, contact, dates, total, amount due) and adds ordering, pagination, scope, and auth details. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the offset paging model ('Pages hold up to 100 invoices; pass offset to read on') and confirming the page-size cap. It does not elaborate on status/payment_status enum semantics, which the schema already covers.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List customer invoices') and enumerates the returned fields (status, amount due, due date, invoice number, contact, dates, total). It clearly reads as a listing tool distinct from the singular odoo_get_invoice, though it never names that or any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage through 'with filters' and 'pass offset to read on', which tells the agent how to page and narrow results, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over odoo_get_invoice or other list tools, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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