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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering semantics ('newest first as Street orders them') that the schema does not, which is genuine value, but says nothing about the response envelope (e.g. the 'included' collection the include param populates) or result size limits.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loading what the resource is before pagination mechanics. The parenthetical list is compressed to the point of being terse but still parseable.

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 carries some burden for describing what comes back, and it only gestures at this via 'property, owner, line items' embedding. The GET /invoices hint and ordering note help, but the agent must infer response structure and filter-combination behavior.

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%, so all six parameters — including page, page_size, paid, voided, include, invoice_type — are already documented in the schema. The description restates a subset (page/page_size, property/owner/line items, paid/voided) without adding format or interaction details, and omits invoice_type entirely. 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') and scopes it to client accounting with the embedded relations and state fields it exposes. It is distinguishable from the sibling street_get_invoice (single record), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Newest first ... page with page and page_size' tells the agent how to paginate but not when to prefer this over street_get_invoice or how to combine filters. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are given.

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