Get Invoice Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'full record' context, indicating a comprehensive return, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the key behavioral aspects, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It front-loads the main action and resource, then specifies the lookup key. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the required parameter and the expected return scope ('full record'). There is no output schema, so the description could have been more explicit about the returned fields, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.

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 100%, and the parameter invoice_id is already described as 'Internal numeric invoice ID.' with an exclusiveMinimum. The description echoes 'internal ID' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single invoice's full record'), and the lookup method ('by internal ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_invoices, which would search for invoices, and get_estimate_details, which targets a different 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when you already have the internal invoice ID and need the full record. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_invoices for finding an ID, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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