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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: newest-first ordering, page size cap of 100, default unpaid status, and the Cotlet API key requirement. It doesn't describe pagination cursors or rate limits, but adds solid value beyond the annotations.

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 second sentence redundantly list the same fields ('job, client, total, amount due and due date'), wasting space. The remaining sentences about default status, page size, and auth are efficient, but the duplication hurts.

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, ordering, page size, and auth requirement, and annotations cover safety. It is complete enough for a simple filtered list, missing only explicit guidance on paginating beyond 100 results.

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 schema already documents limit (1-100, default 50), since, and status (with enum). The description only restates the default unpaid status and the 100-invoice page size, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (invoices) and the fields returned (job, client, total, amount due, due date), so an agent knows it is a read/list operation. It does not distinguish itself from sibling list tools like workiz_list_estimates or workiz_list_jobs beyond the resource name.

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 'Unpaid is the default,' which is useful context for how the call behaves, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool for other invoice statuses or filtering scenarios.

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