get_buyer_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination, rate limits, or response structure. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a localized parenthetical. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, but it may be too minimal for a tool with many parameters.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what information is returned, how filters combine, or that un_id is required. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions in the schema; it merely says 'with filters' without explaining parameter interactions or usage.

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 lists buyer-side invoices with filters. It specifies the action (List) and resource (buyer-side invoices), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_buyer_invoices_r or get_seller_invoices.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to other invoice-listing tools, which are abundant in the sibling list.

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