pennylane_list_supplier_invoices

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 by structured fields. The description only adds that filters and pagination are supported, which is thin additional context and says nothing about return format or result ordering beyond the 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence partially restates the first, but the whole thing is well within an appropriate size for a list tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is any routing guidance among the many sibling invoice tools, leaving the definition minimally adequate for a fully documented list endpoint.

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%, so all five parameters (sort, limit, cursor, status, supplier_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's generic mention of 'filtres et pagination' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 and resource ('Liste les factures fournisseurs') plus scope modifiers (filters, pagination), so an agent knows this is a listing operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling readers such as pennylane_get_supplier_invoice or pennylane_list_supplier_invoice_lines.

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?

'Utile pour consulter les factures reçues, filtrer par statut ou fournisseur' implies when to use it, but offers no explicit when-not conditions and does not name alternatives like get_supplier_invoice for a single record. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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