list_invoices_for_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or how the 'top' parameter affects results.

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 very concise with a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, it could be more informative without being verbose, making it slightly less than ideal.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on the 'top' parameter and how results are filtered or ordered, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description only implicitly explains the 'project_id' parameter by mentioning 'for a specific project'. The 'top' parameter is completely unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists invoices for a specific project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_invoices (general) and list_invoices_for_client (by client) by specifying the scope as 'project'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., list_invoices_for_client, list_invoices_for_date_range), explicit context on when to prefer this one would be helpful.

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