timeiq_invoice_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It ambiguously says 'Get ... details' but does not specify if this triggers a PDF compilation or merely retrieves an existing URL. There is no mention of side effects, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 too short, consisting of only one sentence that sacrifices clarity for brevity. It leaves important details unexplained, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the tool has one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value (expected URL), behavior, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is not explained in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., invoice ID, export ID). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 states 'Get invoice export/PDF compile details', which specifies a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like timeiq_invoice_get (which likely returns invoice data) by targeting export details. However, the parenthetical 'Client-side URL tag' is cryptic and could be clearer about what exactly is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative invoice tools like timeiq_invoice_get, timeiq_invoice_send, or others. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an invoice must exist) or context for when export details are available.

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