Search Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds context: 'The query parameter searches across client names and invoice content,' which clarifies search scope. An example further illustrates usage. Pagination behavior (limit, offset, after) is not mentioned, but schema covers that.

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 two concise bilingual sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and filtering capabilities. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 8 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is largely complete. It covers the core search and filter functionality, search scope, and provides an example. However, it omits mention of pagination or result ordering, which would be helpful for agents using limit/offset/after.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains that query searches across client names and invoice content (schema says 'Search text (client name, etc.)'), and provides a concrete example showing parameter usage. This adds valuable semantic context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search and filter invoices.' It specifies the resource (invoices) and the action (search and filter). The mention of filtering by status and date range differentiates it from sibling tools like list_invoices, which likely provide a simple list without filtering.

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 implies usage when filtering is needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like list_invoices for unfiltered access or get_invoice for a single invoice. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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