trybiut_invoices_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that login is required and that anonymous access is impossible, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or what happens if the user has no invoices. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded with the main action and resource. The second sentence adds a meaningful constraint. No wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the key access constraint (login required). However, it doesn't describe the return format or any filtering/ordering behavior, which an agent might need to know to interpret results. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all, but the schema itself documents it with type, default, and bounds. Since there is only one parameter and the schema is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning but the schema covers it. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('invoices of the logged-in user'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trybiut_movements_list or trybiut_tax_history. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough.

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 gives a clear context: it requires login and is never accessible anonymously. This implies it should be used when the user is authenticated and wants to see their invoices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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