invoices_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—no mention of what is returned, any authentication requirements, or implications of the altId/altType parameters. With annotations present, the burden is lower, but the description still contributes zero additional transparency.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It consists of only two words, providing no useful structure or front-loaded information. A concise description should still convey essential purpose and usage; this one fails to do so, making it closer to under-specification than effective brevity.

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?

This is a retrieval tool with no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., full invoice details) and any contextual requirements like location vs. company ID via altType. The description offers none of this, making it entirely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities and return value.

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 three parameters (invoiceId, altId, altType) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics—it does not clarify the relationship between altId and altType or the defaulting behavior that appears in the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no value.

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?

The description 'Get invoice' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'invoices_get_invoice'. It states the verb and resource but adds no specificity about which invoice or any distinguishing features. While the name itself is clear, the description provides no incremental clarity and fails to differentiate from other invoice tools like get_invoice_schedule or list_invoices.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many invoice-related siblings (get_invoice_schedule, list_invoices, get_invoice_settings), the description provides no context for when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what it offers over others. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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