freeagent_list_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about the returned data (status, outstanding balance) and filter behavior via views, but does not disclose pagination limits or API-specific edge cases.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The view guidance is concise and actionable, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does mention key return fields (status, outstanding balance), which partially offsets that gap. With all parameters optional and well-documented in the schema, and annotations indicating a safe list operation, the description is largely complete. Minor omission: no mention of default ordering or result limit behavior beyond the schema's 'default 50, max 100'.

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 100% parameter description coverage, including enums, regex patterns, and defaults. The description only re-emphasizes some view values and adds no new syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'FreeAgent invoices', and specifies the output includes status and outstanding balance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bills and list_contacts, and the mention of specific views (overdue, open_or_overdue, draft) reinforces scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use different view values (e.g., 'overdue' to chase late payers, 'draft' for unissued invoices), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like get_invoice for individual invoice details, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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