get_invoice_desc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description does not add further behavioral context such as whether the result is paginated, if it returns historical or current items, or if it requires specific permissions. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not enriched.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly improved by placing the Georgian translation after the English, but overall efficient.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does not indicate what fields or structure the returned line items have. For a tool retrieving a list of items, this information would be helpful. However, the tool is simple with one parameter and no complexities, so the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter 'invois_id', which the schema describes as 'Invoice unique ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it retrieves 'all goods/service line items for an invoice', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (likely header info) and 'delete_invoice_desc'. However, the tool name 'get_invoice_desc' could be misinterpreted as getting invoice description rather than line items, slightly reducing clarity.

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. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool should be used when detailed line items are needed, as opposed to 'get_invoice' which might summarize.

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