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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context (which states are returned, that totals accompany the records, and that results are date-sorted), but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of the response for a paged list with no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the scope, the states, and the sort basis, followed by a short API endpoint reference. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 paged listing with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter scope, and sort basis adequately. The remaining gap is the paged response envelope, which is not described anywhere but is not essential to invoking the tool 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% and all three paging parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by noting results are sorted by date, which is the missing piece the schema's 'order' parameter never names — it clarifies what field the sort direction applies to.

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 invoice states and the fact that totals and date sorting are included. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings hiveage_list_connection_invoices or hiveage_list_recurring_invoice_invoices, so an agent must infer that this returns the unscoped, account-wide list.

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?

Usage is only implied: the absence of any contact/recurring filter suggests this is the broad listing, while the sibling tools handle scoped listings. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hiveage_list_connection_invoices or hiveage_get_invoice.

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