agenta_invoices_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral precondition: the invoice must be paid. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unpaid invoices, authentication requirements, or how the download is delivered (stream vs. saved file), leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words, and the key constraint ('paid invoice') is front-loaded alongside the action. Appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 low-complexity download tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is produced and the main precondition. It is nearly complete, though a note on failure behavior for unpaid invoices would close the remaining gap.

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 both parameters (id and output path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or usage detail for either parameter, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Download'), resource ('receipt PDF'), and scope ('for a paid invoice'), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'agenta_invoices_send_receipt', but the download-vs-send distinction is implicit in the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the paid-invoice constraint, and no mention of alternatives. The description implies you call it when you want a receipt, but offers no routing logic against sibling tools.

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