get_seller_invoices_r

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only the filtering context ('needing reaction'). It does not disclose return format, pagination, or performance traits. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

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, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. The Georgian parenthetical may reduce clarity for non-Georgian readers, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. Annotations handle safety. However, it omits details about error handling or filtering edge cases, but these are not critical for basic use.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (un_id and status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 explicitly states 'List seller-side invoices needing reaction,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_seller_invoices' (general listing) and 'get_buyer_invoices_r' (buyer-side) by specifying 'seller-side' and 'needing reaction'.

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 lacks any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context about alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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