list_account_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Gets all invoices' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive billing data, this lack of behavioral context is significant.

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 core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 that this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (invoice objects, summaries, or raw data), whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled. For a billing-related tool that likely requires specific permissions, this represents a significant contextual gap.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (accountId and status) with descriptions and enum values. The description mentions filtering by status, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the structured fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('invoices for a Postman billing account'), and specifies filtering by status. It distinguishes from generic 'get' operations by mentioning the filtering aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_accounts' or other invoice-related tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. While it implies filtering by status, it doesn't explain when this filtering is necessary or what happens without it. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.

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