get_contract_to_cash_invoice_issued

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by using 'Read'. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey, such as error behavior or exact-match semantics.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information or redundant phrasing.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is minimal and omits crucial context about the domain-specific term 'provider-observed' and the roles of company_ref and project_ref. An agent might not know how to correctly populate the required parameters or interpret the record.

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 schema provides three parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain them. The parameter names (record_id, company_ref, project_ref) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their roles or which are essential for addressing a specific record.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('one exact provider-observed invoice issuance custody record'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_contract_to_cash_invoice_issued (write) and get_contract_to_cash_cash_collection (different record type).

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 usage is implied by the read semantics and the 'one exact' phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as listing or scanning invoice issuance records. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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