list_invoices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context of its own, such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or what filters are available beyond the schema.

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 extremely short with no filler, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified: it restates the name and provides no structured explanation. This is under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 tool with six optional parameters and numerous sibling list_* and get_* tools, this definition provides no guidance on when this tool is appropriate or how it relates to siblings. The output schema can inform return shape, but the description leaves the agent without usage context.

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 the input schema fully documents all six optional parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, offering no information beyond the resource being listed. While 'List Invoices' does include a verb and resource, it is a tautology rather than a clarifying statement.

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?

There is no explanation of when to use list_invoices versus the related get_invoice or other list_* tools. The sibling list includes many similar list operations, but the description provides no distinguishing context or exclusions.

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