get_customer_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get all invoices' usefully signals a complete, read-only listing, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, whether archived/void invoices are included, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the optional filter are both stated immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only guidance an agent gets. It covers the core action but leaves return shape, pagination, and status values unaddressed, which is thin for a list tool in a large invoice-tool family.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey the meaning of both parameters conceptually (customerId selects the customer, status filters the results), but offers no format guidance and does not enumerate the accepted status values.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get all invoices for a specific customer') with an explicit scope qualifier. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_invoices by scoping to one customer, but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'for a specific customer' plus the optional status filter implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_invoices or get_invoice, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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