search_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are paginated, which is useful, but it omits permissions, defaults, sort behavior, and result contents for a 17-param read tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource and then filtering capability. No filler, though the 'etc.' after the status list is slightly imprecise.

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 17-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin: it says results are paginated but does not describe sorting defaults or the fields returned. The complete schema compensates for parameter documentation, keeping this at a minimum-viable level.

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% and each of the 17 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of status, customer, date range, and overdue merely echoes a subset of the schema without adding format or interplay details.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (invoices) with the scope of filtering, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_invoice or search_bills, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description lists filter dimensions but gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives (e.g., use get_invoice for a single record by ID). An agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice versus the many sibling search_* and get_invoice tools.

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