autotask_get_invoice_details

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state that no data is modified. Discloses that the output includes nested line items, but lacks details on potential limitations or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning. Highly concise and structured effectively.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output (invoice with nested line items) sufficiently for the tool's purpose. It could mention how to obtain the invoiceId (e.g., via search_invoices), but that is not essential. Mostly complete.

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?

The single parameter 'invoiceId' is described in the schema with type and purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'The invoice ID to fetch'. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states it retrieves a single Autotask invoice with nested line items, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_search_invoices by emphasizing that this tool provides detailed content including line items.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for finance workflows that require detailed invoice content. It implies that for listing invoices, one should use search_invoices. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning alternatives, but the context is clear.

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