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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses the sort order (newest first), the concrete return fields (total, status as TaxDome shows it, issue date), and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). Pagination behavior via the cursor param is left to the schema.

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 first sentence and the second sentence largely restate the same content ("Invoices of an account with amount, status and dates" vs "Lists the invoices of one account ... with total, status ... and issue date"). The auth sentence is useful but the front half is redundant and could be merged into one tighter lead.

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 does the work of naming the key returned fields and the ordering, plus the auth prerequisite, which is the essential context for a read-only list tool. It omits only pagination and the account_id provenance, both of which the schema already covers.

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 both account_id and cursor are already documented, including the hint that account_id comes from list_accounts. The description implies account-scoped filtering but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (lists) and resource (invoices of one account), and adds distinguishing detail: newest-first ordering and the fields returned. It is clearly separable from taxdome_send_invoice and the other taxdome_list_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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?

"Use it to avoid billing a client twice for one period" gives a concrete motivating scenario, which is better than nothing. However, it never states when not to use it, nor routes the agent to any alternative tool or prerequisite (e.g. that list_accounts must run first to get the account_id).

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