pennylane_get_customer_invoice

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding response-shape behavior: invoice_lines, payments and matched_transactions are embedded rather than returned as URLs. It also discloses a non-obvious data semantic (empty lists = unreconciled), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively adds embedding behavior and reconciliation semantics in three tight sentences. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still supplies the one thing an agent would otherwise get wrong: that payments/matched_transactions are embedded and that empty lists do not mean the money has arrived. Combined with annotations covering safety, this is complete for a one-parameter getter.

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% and there is a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. 'Par son identifiant' restates the schema without adding format, range or validity guidance, so the 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?

States a specific verb (récupère) and resource (facture client) with the lookup key (par son identifiant), and 'détail complet ... en un appel' implicitly separates it from the list_customer_invoices sibling. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'en un appel' (fetch everything in a single call) rather than stated as a when-to-use rule against list_customer_invoices or list_customer_invoice_lines. The note that empty payments/matched_transactions mean 'not reconciled, see Qonto' is a partial when-not hint, but no alternative tool in this family is named.

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