chorus_list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Liste les factures' without mentioning return format, pagination behavior, default values, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. It concisely conveys the main action and available filters, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic listing intent and filter options, but omits critical context such as return structure, result limits, error cases, or any operational details an agent would need to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description mentions filters by date, status, and pagination, which maps to the existing parameters, but adds no extra semantic detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') and specifies the resource ('les factures présentes sur Chorus Pro'), making the core purpose clear. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the action is distinct from chorus_submit or chorus_get_status, so an agent can reasonably infer the tool's role.

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 explains when to use the tool: to list invoices with optional date, status, and pagination filters. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for listing operations.

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