pennylane_list_customer_invoice_lines

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no pagination behavior, no note that the required invoice id must reference an existing customer invoice), so there is little extra disclosure to credit.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it leaves obvious gaps unaddressed.

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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry purpose and routing. Purpose is clear, but the missing usage/routing guidance against sibling line-list tools leaves a modest gap, making this minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 limit, cursor and customer_invoice_id each documented in the schema itself. The description's parenthetical "(articles)" slightly clarifies what a line is, but it adds no format, range or pagination detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("les lignes (articles) d'une facture client"), clearly distinguishing the line-item view from the invoice-header view of the sibling pennylane_list_customer_invoices. It also scopes to "client" invoices versus the supplier-invoice-line sibling, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is the drill-down from pennylane_list_customer_invoices or pennylane_get_customer_invoice, and no alternative is mentioned for retrieving invoice-level rather than line-level data.

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