list_invoices

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that invoices are listed and that status filtering is possible. It does not mention pagination (though page_size parameter exists), ordering, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only operation. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but overall transparency is low.

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 short (one sentence plus a list of status values) and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, but the lack of structure (e.g., no separation of parameter details) reduces clarity.

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 tool has three parameters (status, case_id, page_size) and an output schema, the description should explain how these parameters affect the result. It only hints at status filtering. The output schema exists but its details are not described. Overall, the description is incomplete for effective tool usage.

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?

None of the three parameters (status, case_id, page_size) are explained in the description. The schema has 0% coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema either. The description lists possible status values but does not explain any parameter semantics. This is completely inadequate.

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 'List invoices' as the action, and specifies the possible status values (draft, sent, paid, overdue). This makes the tool's purpose easy to understand. However, it does not distinguish itself from other similar list tools beyond the resource 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_invoice_payments or other list tools. The description implies it lists invoices with optional status filtering, but does not exclude other scenarios or mention prerequisites.

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