List Invoices

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 does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated (only the schema hints at page), auth requirements, or what the response contains. The filter context is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and filtering scope second. No filler, though the second sentence largely echoes schema fields.

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 zero-required-param list tool the description is adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits return shape, pagination behavior, and safety profile. It covers the minimum needed to invoke, not the full behavioral picture.

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 all four params (q, date, page, state) are already documented. The description restates three of them (contact name, state, date) but ignores pagination and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'List invoices from your Quaderno account.' An agent can distinguish this from create_invoice and create_contact by the 'List' verb. It stops short of differentiating scope from any sibling list tool, but none exists here.

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 sentence 'Supports filtering by ...' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to siblings (e.g., create_invoice, calculate_tax). Usage is only implied by the read-oriented 'List' verb.

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