search_invoices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The description only says 'Search invoices by...' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what kind of result objects are returned, how results are ordered, or whether it affects data in any way.

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 with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and all key filter dimensions efficiently.

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 8 parameters, one required parameter (company_id, which has no schema description), and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what company_id means, what the response contains, or how the search behaves with empty results or large result sets.

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 high at 88%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter explanation. The description summarizes the filter categories, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, such as how filters combine or behave in edge cases.

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 clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('invoices'), and enumerates the supported filter dimensions. It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish explicitly from sibling tools like get_invoice_details or search_ledgers.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invoice_details, which likely retrieves full details for a specific invoice. No exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about when a different search tool would be more appropriate are provided.

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