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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context about returned fields and filters but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits). With strong annotations, the description provides moderate added value.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing key details. Every word adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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-only list tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage context. It lacks details on pagination beyond 'limit' and does not mention result format, but these are either in schema or implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what schema descriptions provide (e.g., filter by state). The mention of 'payment_state' in returned fields could clarify the output but does not enhance parameter understanding. 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 clearly specifies the tool lists Odoo customer invoices, identifies the model (account.move) and filter (move_type=out_invoice), lists returned fields, and gives concrete use cases. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like odoo_list_sale_orders by being invoice-specific.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios ('unpaid invoices', 'recent customer invoices'), guiding the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually sufficient given the sibling tools.

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