List invoices

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

With no annotations, the description adds 'read-only' and OData filtering support, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or output format beyond the OData examples.

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 concise sentences. The first immediately states purpose and read-only nature; the second provides actionable examples. No extraneous information; every word adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., array of invoices with fields). It adequately covers input filtering but lacks detail on output structure, which is needed for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances the 'filter' parameter with exact OData examples (e.g., status filters), which adds practical meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The other parameters (top, skip, orderby) are not additionally explained.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'invoices', and includes 'read-only' which distinguishes it from mutation tools. It provides concrete filter examples, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 for filtering and viewing invoices but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or explain when to use which. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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