xero_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation must have effect 'read' and is enforced by Spring, and that it routes through a governed connector authority. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether the arguments string is passed through verbatim or what happens with unknown fields, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 compact, organized, and front-loaded with tool identity followed by a clear arguments list. There is no filler or redundant prose beyond the first sentence, which mostly restates the name. The structure makes the wrapper parameters easy to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be explained, and annotations cover safety. But the description omits the most operationally important information: what must be placed inside the 'arguments' JSON string and how this tool should be selected among the many Xero and invoice-related siblings. An agent could not reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It does explain project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref at a high level. However, the critical parameter 'arguments' is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any guidance on the required fields or shape needed to actually fetch an invoice, which is the central invocation detail.

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 names the operation as 'get_invoice' and the platform tool as 'xero.get_invoice', but it never actually states in functional terms that this retrieves invoice data from Xero. The routing constraint is about governance, not about what the tool does. It is essentially a restatement of the name plus a scoping note, so it is clear only through the name and sibling context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_list_invoices, xero_api_request, or get_invoice tools for other ERPs. 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a constraint, not a usage rule, and no exclusions or selection conditions are provided.

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