list_invoices

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context — no pagination semantics (limit/offset behavior or defaults), no indication of result volume, ordering, or what an empty result looks like. For a list tool with no output schema this is a notable gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource named first and the filter capability trailing, so the important information is front-loaded. There is no filler, though the sentence carries essentially no information beyond the tool name and schema.

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?

With six optional parameters, no required arguments, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent to infer pagination behavior and return shape entirely from the schema. It is complete enough to invoke, but not complete enough to predict what comes back or how to page through results.

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 status, contract_id, from_date, to_date, limit, and offset are all already documented in the schema. The description restates three of those filter dimensions but adds no format, default, or enumeration detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (invoices) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent immediately knows it returns a collection rather than a single record. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_invoice or the other list_* tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'optional filters' signals that filters can be omitted to list everything, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_invoice, list_invoice_adjustments, or list_payments. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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