get_customer_invoices

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the optional status filter, such as pagination, error behavior, or handling of missing customers. The description is not contradictory but provides little extra disclosure.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the optional filter. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, making it efficient and easily parsed.

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 straightforward list operation, the description covers the essential purpose but omits potentially useful details like pagination, ordering, or default behavior when no invoices exist. Given there is no output schema, the description could reasonably include more context, but it is not critically incomplete for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It clarifies customerId as the customer identifier and status as an optional filter, but does not detail accepted status values, requiredness (customerId is required per schema), or behavior when omitted. This provides basic semantics but lacks depth.

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 action (Get), the resource (invoices), and the scoping (for a specific customer), with an optional status filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoices (which likely retrieves all invoices) and get_invoice (single invoice), making its 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 implies usage for retrieving invoices tied to a specific customer, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_invoices or get_invoice. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the phrasing suggests the customer-scoped context.

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