get-invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool retrieves data (read-only implied), but does not confirm it has no side effects, mention authentication requirements, or describe error conditions. Standard behavior for a 'get' tool, but could be more explicit.

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 concise: two short sentences. The first states the purpose, the second lists key contents. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 there is no output schema, the description lists important returned fields (line items, taxes, payment status). However, it omits other typical invoice fields like date, customer info, or total amount, though 'full details' implies comprehensiveness. Slightly incomplete but adequate for most contexts.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema clearly describes the invoiceId parameter with format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the tool returns full details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves full details for a specific invoice and lists included components (line items, taxes, payment status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-invoices (which returns a list) and get-payment (for individual payments).

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 full invoice details are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only a summary is needed) or provide alternatives from the sibling list. No direct comparison to list-invoices or get-payment is given.

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