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. It discloses pagination behavior ('with pagination'), which is useful, but it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format, ordering, or potential pagination limits beyond the parameter defaults. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the action, scope, and key feature (pagination) without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (three optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on how the returned list behaves (e.g., newest first or oldest first), and without annotations it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. A slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description's mention of pagination adds a small amount of context that maps to limit and offset, but it does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('invoices'), and adds a scope constraint ('created by this merchant'). It clearly identifies the list operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_invoice_details or list_transactions, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'created by this merchant' provides a clear context that this is scoped to the current merchant, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invoice_details for a single invoice. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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