invoices_list_invoice_templates

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so safety is disclosed. However, the description adds no behavior beyond 'List', failing to mention return format, pagination semantics, or any side effects. It doesn't leverage the annotation coverage to add useful context.

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 terse (two words), which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical context. It's under-specified rather than efficiently structured, so a middle score is warranted.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the agent needs contextual information about what the tool returns and how parameters interrelate (e.g., startAt/endAt, status, search). The description provides none of this, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List templates' names a verb and a resource but is vague – it doesn't specify which templates (invoice templates) or the context from the tool name. It is not a tautology but lacks clarity on scope and sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like invoices_list_estimate_templates or invoices_list_invoices. No mention of filters, pagination, or typical use cases.

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