List Invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, default sorting, or what the response contains—all relevant given the page/page_size/sort parameters. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the usage scenarios. No filler or repetition; 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?

For a 9-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what and some of the why but omits pagination limits, default ordering, and return shape. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition but not complete for the complexity involved.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with types, ranges, and examples. The description only restates 'optional filters' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (invoices) plus the source system (Productive.io), which cleanly distinguishes it from the singular productive_get_invoice. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many sibling invoice tools (create/update/from_previous), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 second sentence gives concrete usage contexts: finding invoices for a client, filtering by status, and locating source invoices to clone. This is explicit when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools (e.g. productive_get_invoice for a single record) or state when this tool is the wrong choice.

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