search_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, but it only says 'Search' and provides a domain example. It does not disclose return format, pagination, default limit behavior, or any constraints such as read-only or required permissions, so the agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the example domain in the second. It is efficient and contains no filler, though the example could be integrated more formally.

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?

Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the tool's search functionality warrants more context—such as what records are returned, how pagination works, and when to prefer this over similar search tools. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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 input schema has no field descriptions and 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. The example domain adds some meaning to the 'domain' parameter by showing the list-of-lists structure with fields like 'move_type' and 'state', but it does not explain 'limit' or other domain syntax variations.

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 action ('Search') and targets a defined resource set ('customer invoices / vendor bills / credit notes'), which is clear and goes beyond the tool name. It partially distinguishes from siblings like search_journal_entries by listing specific move types, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_journal_entries or get_invoice. The example domain shows how to filter, but it does not explain selection criteria or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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