Search Invoices

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a critical non-obvious behavior: the endpoint has no server-side filters, and customer_name is applied as a client-side substring match on the fetched page only. This is exactly the kind of quirk an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and key features; the second delivers a necessary caveat about filtering behavior. No redundant restating of schema details.

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 list tool, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, how results are organized, and the surprising limitation of customer_name filtering. The schema handles pagination and sort details, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational nuance for customer_name by clarifying it is not sent to the API and only matches within the fetched page, which goes beyond the schema's 'client-side substring filter' wording.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List invoices, sorted and paginated.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_invoice_details (detail lookup) and search_estimates/search_jobs (different resources), while the note about customer_name adds scope without blurring the core purpose.

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 gives useful context: this is a paged, sorted listing tool, and customer_name filtering is only client-side against the fetched page. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer get_invoice_details over this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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