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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the scoping constraint (one company, one month folder) and the underlying endpoint POST /api/xml/3.0/invoice/getidlist for traceability. It does not mention that the reply is split into several paginated lists, one per document type, which is the main behavioral fact left implicit in the 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?

Two compact sentences: the scope and document types come first, the follow-up tool second, with the raw endpoint appended as a terse reference. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 id-listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (ids) and what to do with them next. The one gap is that it never says the response contains multiple separately paginated lists, leaving the agent to infer that limit/offset apply per document-type list.

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 all five parameters including limit/offset paging semantics are already documented. The description only reinforces the company + year + month folder grouping, which the schema already conveys, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. 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 invoice ids) and enumerates exactly which document types are covered (invoices, corrective invoices, pre-invoices, corrective pre-invoices), scoped to one company and one month folder. It implicitly separates itself from saldeo_list_invoices by emphasizing ids-only, but never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 sentence 'Feed them to saldeo_get_invoices_by_ids' gives a concrete next step and thereby implies this is a two-phase id-then-detail workflow, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer saldeo_list_invoices instead, or any prerequisites such as needing a valid company_program_id first.

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