list_issued_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses that the response is paginated with page, last_page and total. However, it omits an important behavioral gotcha visible in the schema: the default type is 'invoice', so an unqualified call silently returns only invoices despite the broad type list advertised.

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 compact sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the pagination contract second. No filler, though a single clause about the default invoice filter would have fit without bloat.

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 7-parameter, fully optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and the pagination shape adequately. It leaves out the default type filtering, the company_id resolution rule, and the fieldset effect, all of which materially change results.

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 71%, so the schema already documents q, sort, type and fieldset. The description adds a modest amount by mapping domain labels (fattura, nota di credito, DDT) onto the type enum and by explaining the pagination envelope. It says nothing about company_id fallback behavior, per_page bounds, or the basic vs detailed fieldset distinction.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Elenca documento emesso') and enumerates the document kinds it covers (fattura, nota di credito, proforma, preventivo, ordine, DDT). The word 'emesso' (issued) implicitly separates it from list_received_documents and list_archive_documents, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer get_issued_document for a single record, or how this differs from list_archive_documents / list_deleted_documents; the only signal is the adjective 'emesso' in the name.

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