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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the underlying API mapping (GET /invoices) and the shape of returned invoice data, but says nothing about default ordering, default page size behavior, or result caps — all of which matter for a list endpoint.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the resource and its returned fields, with the filter capability trailing. The trailing "TeamUp: GET /invoices" is mildly useful for API traceability and costs little.

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 enumerates key returned fields, which is the main gap it needs to fill. A read-only list tool with fully documented parameters needs little more; only pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the status and customer_membership filters and samples the status enum, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List invoices") plus the scope of data returned (status, due date, amount due, payer, receipt URL) and the two supported filters. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never names the sibling goteamup_get_invoice as the single-invoice counterpart.

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?

"Filter by status or a customer membership" implies when the filters are relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no guidance on choosing between this and goteamup_get_invoice, and no mention of pagination strategy for large result sets.

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