paygentic_list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions API key requirement but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any pagination/rate limits. For a list operation, essential behavioral traits like idempotency and read-only nature are omitted.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the listing action from the auth requirement.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return values (e.g., list of invoice objects, fields included). For a listing operation, omitting pagination or response structure leaves the agent with incomplete 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 0%, yet the description only restates parameter names ('wallet and status') without adding semantics or format details (e.g., enum meanings, walletId format). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'invoices', with optional filters by wallet and status. It is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like paygentic_create_invoice (create) and paygentic_list_wallets (list wallets), so an agent can readily identify its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., paygentic_get_transactions for specific transactions). No when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites beyond 'Requires API key' are given, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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