invoices_list_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations—no mention of pagination, result format, or any operational constraints. It is consistent with annotations but provides no 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 concise—two words with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded and efficient, although it is possibly too terse to convey necessary context. Given its minimal length, it earns a high score for conciseness and structure, but not a perfect 5 because it omits potentially important information.

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 12 parameters, including required limit and offset, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, pagination, or usage context. It does none of this. The tool is relatively complex, and the description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without additional documentation. It only states the action without any contextual completeness.

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%, with each of the 12 parameters having a description, including enums and defaults. The description itself does not add any parameter-related meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra 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 'List invoices' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (invoices), distinguishing it from get_invoice, create_invoice, and other sibling invoice tools. However, it does not provide any additional scoping or filtering context that would help differentiate it from other list operations, so it is clear but not exceptionally specific.

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 any use cases, exclusions, or conditions, and it does not reference any sibling tools like invoices_get_invoice or invoices_list_estimates. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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