list_invoices

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent list operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating the default ordering (newest first), the searchable dimensions (invoice number or buyer name), pagination, and the shape of each returned row.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted wording. Ordering, searchability, pagination, and returned fields are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of returned rows and pagination behavior. It could be slightly more complete about edge cases or total counts, but an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 defaults, enum values, and constraints are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the search and ordering semantics but adds little parameter meaning that is not already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing: it lists outgoing invoices, describes default order, searchability, pagination, and row contents. It clearly separates this from retrieval/mutation siblings such as get_invoice_data and create_invoice, although it does not name any sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the description's focus on searching and paging outgoing invoices, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use condition compared with get_invoice_data or list_bank_transactions. An agent can infer the browsing/search use case, but must decide alternatives on its own.

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