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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, newest-first ordering, that an inaccessible shop returns not-found, and that amounts require see_prices. It omits pagination behavior for limit/cursor.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then filters, safety, and permission notes. No wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described. The description covers ordering, filtering, error semantics, and permissions; the main gap is pagination semantics for limit and cursor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies q (customer name or invoice id), status filtering, and shop_id access semantics, but leaves limit and cursor undocumented, so the compensation is only partial.

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 resource and scope: invoices in one shop, ordered newest first, with filtering. It implicitly separates itself from invoices_get by referencing it for permission parity, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Gives clear filtering options (status, customer name, invoice id) and notes the read-only nature, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus invoices_get or invoices_aging guidance beyond a permission cross-reference.

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