get_invoice

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 word 'Get' conveys a read-only lookup, but the description does not mention not-found behavior, authorization needs, or that no records are modified. This is adequate for a simple getter but leaves clear gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the operation, the resource, and the selection method in the most efficient way possible.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no annotations, this description is enough to make a correct call when the ID is known. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from stating that the response is the full invoice object and what happens if the ID does not exist, so completeness is only partial.

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 coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is id. 'By ID' adds the key semantic that the integer id identifies which invoice to retrieve, but it adds almost nothing beyond what the schema's property name already implies. For a single obvious parameter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 ('Get') and names the exact resource ('a sale invoice') selected by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from get_bill, get_expense, and list_invoices, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'by ID' clearly implies the intended usage: call this tool when you need a single sale invoice and you already have its identifier. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_invoices for when the ID is unknown, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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