brc_list_sales_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely says 'lists', implying a read-only operation but without detailing any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 concise sentence, but it lacks substance. While not verbose, it could be restructured to include more useful information without increasing length significantly.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what BRC stands for, the nature of sales invoices, pagination behavior, or how it differs from sibling list tools.

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 description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema. With schema description coverage at 43%, some parameters have descriptions, but the tool description itself provides no parameter context or usage hints.

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?

Description clearly states it lists BRC sales invoices, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like brc_list_sales_credit_notes or brc_list_sales_entries, lacking context on the distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for listing credit notes or entries, other tools should be used.

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