Download sales invoice PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the URL is signed and expires after 30 seconds. This is critical operational knowledge that changes how the agent should handle the result. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the actionable expiry warning is stated directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (a download URL) and its critical temporal constraint (signed, 30s expiry). The parameter information is handled by the schema, and annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 67%; media and adminstration_id have descriptions, while sales_invoice_id is bare but self-explanatory. The tool description itself adds no paramter meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the 33% undocumented coverage is minor because the parameter name is clear. The description does not need to compensate much, but it also contributes nothing.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return a download URL for the invoice PDF.' This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and the resource type. The name itself clearly differentiates it from sibling PDF/download tools like download_estimate_pdf and download_document_attachment.

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 clear post-invocation guidance ('use it immediately') but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_sales_invoice or download_estimate_pdf. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the resource type; no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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