list_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'List' clearly indicates a read operation without side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination, default scope, or the meaning of 'Bigcapital list filters', so some behavioral detail is missing.

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 one short sentence with no redundant wording and the action is front-loaded. It is concise but perhaps too terse to fully support a six-parameter tool.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single generic sentence is not enough. It omits return value shape, pagination/filter behavior, and any explanation of Bigcapital-specific filter parameters, so the agent cannot reliably anticipate the result.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it merely says 'Bigcapital list filters' and leaves viewSlug, filterRoles, customViewId, and sortOrder largely undefined. Only sortBy and searchTerm have schema descriptions, so an agent has limited guidance for most parameters.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('sale invoices'), which is enough to distinguish it from single-record retrieval tools like get_invoice and update_invoice. It is not as explicit as naming alternatives, but the verb+resource pairing is clearly non-tautological.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_bills, list_sale_receipts, or get_invoice. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name.

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