get_sales_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and enumerates the returned fields (debtor name, reference, due date, open amount, currency). It does not disclose default sort behavior or the effect of includeBankTransactions, but these are covered in the schema and do not undermine the core transparency.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the purpose and output fields, with the optional filter in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and the optional filter. It omits default sort order and includeBankTransactions behavior, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, the description plus schema is sufficient for a human or AI to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for all 4 parameters. The description's mention of dateOutstanding as a 'due date cutoff' is redundant with the schema's existing explanation ('ISO date string... returns only items outstanding as of this date'). No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'outstanding (unpaid) sales invoices from Yuki.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_purchase_invoices and process_sales_invoice, and the scope ('outstanding/unpaid') is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for listing unpaid sales invoices and mentions the optional dateOutstanding filter, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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