List invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose key behavior: cursor pagination, next_cursor absent on the last page, and the read-only nature implied by 'Read'. It omits auth/permission needs and rate limits, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the pagination contract is stated immediately. Minor redundancy in re-listing filters already enumerated in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (items[] and next_cursor) plus the terminal-page condition. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and iterate correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented (status enum list, Unix seconds bounds, cursor origin). The description restates the filter set and Unix-seconds semantics without adding syntax the schema lacks — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Read one cursor-paginated page of invoices for a project.' An agent can distinguish this page-listing tool from the sibling get_invoice (single invoice) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance ('Poll with the returned cursor; do not guess offsets') and implies the filter-driven retrieval context. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of 5.

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