List document styles

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context by clarifying that 'document styles' means invoice and estimate layouts and scoping the operation to an administration, but it adds no details about pagination, response shape, or default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the useful clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler given the title and schema already present.

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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is sufficient. It names the resource, clarifies what counts as document styles, and scopes the operation to an administration. The schema handles parameter defaults, and the annotations handle safety behavior, so nothing critical is missing for selection and invocation.

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 already documents the optional administration_id parameter, including its default value and how to discover available ids. The description only restates the administration scope ('of the administration') without adding new parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the baseline.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('document styles') and adds the clarifying parenthetical that these are invoice and estimate layouts. This distinguishes the tool from sibling list/get tools by the exact resource it targets.

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 this tool is for retrieving layout/style definitions for invoices and estimates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools like list_sales_invoices or list_estimates. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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