ingrammicro_search_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description does not add further behavioral context such as pagination limits or result size, but that is available in the parameter schema. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate because it adds no extra behavioral disclosure beyond a read-only search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the workflow note. No redundant words or filler.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and annotations, plus an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the filter scope, and how it fits with get_invoice. An agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (page_size, invoice_date, order_number, etc.) is already documented with formats and defaults. The description only summarizes the filter categories without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'invoices', enumerates searchable criteria (order, invoice number, date range, status), and differentiates itself from sibling ingrammicro_get_invoice by framing this as the discovery step. This is clear and distinguishes the tool from related order/search tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to find the exact invoice number before calling ingrammicro_get_invoice. This gives both a clear use case and an alternative, with the relationship stated. Nothing is left to inference.

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