agenta_invoices_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, result ordering, or return shape, though the parameter name implies paging. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two words with zero filler and the verb front-loaded, so there is no wasted text. But the terseness comes at the cost of usefulness rather than reflecting deliberate concision.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description this thin, the agent must infer everything about the result set (pagination metadata, ordering, tenant scoping). For an invoice-listing tool in a multi-tenant API, the description falls short of complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with default and min/max. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 and resource ('List invoices'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no scope detail (whose invoices, what filtering, what ordering) and nothing that distinguishes it from sibling invoice tools such as agenta_invoices_receipt. Vague-but-adequate.

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 versus the other invoice siblings (receipt, send_receipt) or versus other list tools (customers_list, products_list, pay_list). The description provides no context or exclusions at all.

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