invoices_get_invoice_template

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already state (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds no context about return format, errors, or side effects, so it fails to contribute any 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?

The description is extremely short but not concisely informative; it is under-specified and contains a grammatical error ('an template'). It lacks substantive content, so it is not a good concise description – it is minimal to the point of being useless.

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 simple GET tool, the description is incomplete: it does not state what is returned, whether the call can fail, or any related context. With no output schema and only the name, the agent has insufficient information to know what to expect from calling it.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, but given high schema coverage, it does not need to compensate. However, it also does not clarify the semantics of templateId/altId/altType, so it earns only the baseline.

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 an template' is essentially a tautology of the tool name and does not specify what a template is, what it retrieves, or how it differs from sibling tools like invoices_list_invoice_templates or invoices_create_invoice_template. It provides no functional clarity beyond the name itself.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to call it, or how it relates to listing or creating templates, leaving the agent without any selection context.

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