list_invoices

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates safe read operation. The description adds that it returns invoices with paging metadata, consistent with read-only behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination defaults, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and filters, the second states the return value. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: filtering capabilities and return of paging metadata. It does not mention default pagination or sorting behavior, but the schema fills in parameter details. Overall adequate for a list tool.

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 input schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description briefly mentions filter categories (customer, state, date range, free-text) which correspond to some parameters, but adds no extra meaning 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 clearly states the tool lists invoices with specified filters (customer, state, date range, free-text search). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (single invoice) and 'list_bills' (bills), but does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 usage for filtering and listing invoices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_invoice' instead) or mentions prerequisites or limitations.

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