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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the endpoint path and hints at returned fields ("amounts and status"), but says nothing about pagination limits (per_page max 100), default ordering, or total-count behavior, which matter for an 11-parameter paged list.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the resource and its vendor-bill gloss front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing here is redundant with the title alone.

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?

The rich schema covers all 11 optional filters, so the agent can construct a call. However, with no output schema the description should say more about what comes back (record fields, pagination envelope), and the "with amounts and status" phrase is too thin to carry that burden.

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 including the date ranges, comma-separated status_id, and the sort_by/order_by enums is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 purchase invoices") and adds the disambiguating gloss "(vendor bills)", which separates it from the sales-invoice sibling kledo_list_invoices. It also names the backing endpoint. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this list tool versus kledo_get_purchase_invoice for a single record, or versus the report tools that also cover payables. The listing intent is only implied by the verb "List".

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