get_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description solely bears the burden. It notes the tool is READ-ONLY, a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on authorization, error conditions, or the scope of 'details' returned.

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, front-loaded sentence of 8 words with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is adequate but could be improved by indicating what fields are returned (no output schema). It lacks completeness regarding the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'invoice_id' is clearly described in the schema. The description does not add semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 'Get details of a specific invoice (READ-ONLY)', specifying the verb, resource, and read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_invoices (which lists multiple) and get_appointment_invoices (which retrieves invoices by appointment).

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. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context for selection among siblings.

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