Get Invoice Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that requests are 'initiated by customers'. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the purpose and including filters. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to filter. It does not describe the response structure, but for a list tool, the return is somewhat implied. Minor gap but overall sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the state enum values: 'OPEN (requires action)', 'UPLOAD_ERROR', or 'ALL'. This provides helpful context for choosing filter values.

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 clearly states it gets a list of invoice requests initiated by customers for shipments, with filtering options. The verb 'get a list' and specific noun 'invoice requests' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' and 'upload_shipment_invoice'.

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 implies when to use this tool—when needing to retrieve invoice requests with optional filters by shipment ID or state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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