Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), doesn't mention pagination behavior (though 'page' and 'limit' parameters exist in schema), and doesn't describe authentication requirements or rate limits. The description adds some value by listing filter options but misses key operational context.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the filter options with helpful examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the filtering parameters well but ignores pagination parameters. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should address more behavioral aspects like pagination mechanics and operational constraints for a listing tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully adds meaning by explaining what each filter parameter does: 'organization_consumer_id', 'statuses' with enumerated values, 'payment_statuses' with examples, and 'date range' for 'from_date'/'to_date'. However, it doesn't mention the 'page' and 'limit' parameters at all, leaving two parameters completely undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'List invoices with optional filters.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('invoices'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular retrieval) or 'list_payments' (different resource), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_invoice' for retrieving a single invoice or 'list_payments' for listing payments instead of invoices. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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