Invoices_getInvoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns invoice data and runs in a different deployment. It does not disclose authentication needs, output format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving the agent to infer these important traits.

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 very short and easy to scan, with the core behavior stated in one sentence. The 'Catalog entry' sentence is largely filler and could be removed, but overall the text is appropriately minimal and free of significant redundancy.

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 tool that is meant to be selected and invoked, the description is incomplete. It omits how to specify the invoice, what data is returned, any required scopes or permissions, and how it relates to the many sibling invoice tools. The environmental note about Kuudo may be important but is left unexplained, leaving the agent without enough context to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema declares zero properties but sets additionalProperties to true, meaning parameters are accepted but undocumented. The description mentions 'the specified invoice' but gives no parameter name, type, or format, so the agent cannot know how to identify the invoice. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 it returns invoice data for a specified invoice, which matches the singular 'getInvoice' name and helps distinguish it from the plural Invoices_getInvoices. However, the opening phrase 'Catalog entry' adds little and does not reinforce the purpose, and 'specified invoice' is vague without a documented identifier.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. It does not explain when to call this tool versus related siblings like Invoices_getInvoices, Invoices_getInvoicesDocument, or Invoices_getInvoicesExport. The only contextual note is environmental ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here'), which is not a usage guideline.

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