get_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only lookup and 'full details' indicates a complete record rather than a summary, but nothing is said about behavior on an unknown ID, required permissions, or error handling.

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 resource and the lookup key are both stated immediately.

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, single-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential shape of the operation. It could say more about what 'full details' comprises or how a missing invoice is signalled, but nothing an agent needs to select and call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By ID' confirms invoiceId is the identifier, which adds a little meaning, but its type/format expectations remain undocumented in both schema and description. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get full details for a single invoice by ID') and the singular scope distinguishes it from the plural siblings get_invoices and get_customer_invoices. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for fetching one known invoice by identifier. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_invoices, get_customer_invoices, or get_invoice's absence of any prerequisite/exclusion conditions.

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