products_list_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what is returned, pagination behavior, or any special constraints. It does not contradict annotations, but it also contributes nothing.

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 ('List Products'), which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It omits necessary context and does not structure information in a useful way.

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, no output schema, and a description that is just 'List Products', the tool is severely under-documented. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how pagination works, or what 'invoices' has to do with products. This is completely 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters (limit, expand, offset, etc.), so the schema handles parameter semantics well. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Products' directly contradicts the tool name 'products_list_invoices', which suggests it lists invoices related to products. The verb and resource are vague and misleading – it could be either products or invoices. It fails to distinguish from siblings like products_list_prices_for_product or invoices_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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of typical scenarios, exclusions, or related tools. The agent is left to infer usage from an ambiguous one-liner.

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