get_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it discloses no pagination defaults, page-size limits, sort order, permission scoping, or result shape — all material for a 5-parameter listing endpoint.

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 that names the action, the resource, and the four filter families with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the filter surface but omits pagination defaults, ordering, and any note on how the invoice list is scoped. Minimally adequate, but an agent still has gaps to guess at.

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 names pagination, search, status, and customer filters, which maps onto page/limit/search/status/customer_id, but adds no format, default, or enum-value detail beyond the parameter names already visible in 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (invoices) plus the filter dimensions, so the agent knows this is a collection read. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_customer_invoices, which also lists invoices and could be confused with this one.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus get_invoice (single record) or the customer-scoped get_customer_invoices. No prerequisites, scope, or exclusions are given, so routing between the list tools is left to inference.

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