pennylane_list_supplier_invoice_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, relying on the existing annotations and output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that fully identifies the operation with zero padding. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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 complete schema (100% coverage), rich annotations, and an output schema, the minimal description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It could still note pagination behavior or how lines relate to the parent invoice, but nothing essential is missing.

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 supplier_invoice_id all documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to the 'specific supplier invoice' ID, adding no semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('les lignes (articles) d'une facture fournisseur'), making it immediately distinguishable from pennylane_list_supplier_invoices (invoices, not lines) and pennylane_get_supplier_invoice. It does not explicitly name siblings such as pennylane_list_customer_invoice_lines, but the supplier/customer split is self-evident.

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: call this to enumerate the line items belonging to a given supplier invoice. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing from the resource noun alone.

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