pax8_list_usage_summary_lines

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

The operation is described as 'List', which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not explicitly disclose any side effects, pagination behavior, or rate limits beyond the parameter documentation.

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 brief, containing a one-line summary followed by a clean parameter list. No redundant information or fluff.

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 that the tool is a list operation and the context indicates an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is sufficient. It does not specify the return format, but this is standard for list endpoints and not critical for invoking 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 description explains all three parameters (usage_summary_id, page, size) with clear, concise semantics, covering exactly what each controls. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of per-property descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('usage summary lines') for a given usage summary, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list companies, invoices, or other resources.

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 purpose is obvious from the resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you have a usage_summary_id and need line items). It is implicit rather than explicit.

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