ghl_get_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without any context about return format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects (which are likely none). For a simple getter, the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool. It is concise without being cryptic.

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 simple single-record getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the minimal necessary information. It adequately tells an agent what the tool does, but it lacks context about the response contents or any relationships to other invoice operations. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is borderline adequate.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, invoiceId, with 0% schema description coverage and no enum or format details. The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the parameter name but adds no extra semantic meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions, even though the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 action ('Get') and the target resource ('a specific invoice by ID'). It explicitly narrows the scope to a single invoice, distinguishing it from the sibling tool ghl_get_invoices (which likely lists invoices). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have an invoice ID and need that specific invoice. It distinguishes from listing (plural) tools by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by ID'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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