accelo_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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior on a missing/invalid ID, or what is returned. For a bare read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the operative sentence comes first, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the Args formatting is slightly clunky and repeats the schema structure.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It falls short on the undefined 'fields' parameter and any signal about return content or failure behavior, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It labels both params ('id: Invoice ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'), which is better than nothing, but 'fields' gives no format or syntax (comma-separated? list?) and no accepted values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single invoice'), and the word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling accelo_list_invoices. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the singular scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 only restates what the tool does; it gives no indication of when to use it versus accelo_list_invoices or accelo_get_invoice_line_item, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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