ingrammicro_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral trait that it returns 'full line-level detail', indicating the response includes detailed invoice lines rather than a summary. This adds context beyond annotations and aligns with the read-only nature.

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?

A single highly informative sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler or redundant words; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 tool with 2 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the core purpose and scope, and the schema and annotations cover the remaining details such as optional serial numbers and safety. No critical information 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 100%, with both parameters documented ('Ingram Micro invoice number' and 'Include per-unit serial numbers in the response'). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the burden.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('invoice'), and a specific scope ('full line-level detail for one invoice'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like ingrammicro_search_invoices, which handle lists, and other get tools focusing on different resources. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does.

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 usage when a specific invoice number is known and line-level detail is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could have stated 'Use ingrammicro_search_invoices to find invoices' or noted this tool is for a single invoice only. The context is clear but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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