timeiq_invoice_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions listing and date filtering, omitting details like pagination, sorting, scope (e.g., includes deleted?), auth requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words that is front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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's complexity (list operation, no output schema, many siblings), the description fails to mention return structure, default behavior, or selection criteria relative to sibling list tools. An agent lacks key context for correct selection and use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'from' and 'to' are date-range filters, but does not specify date format (e.g., ISO 8601) or behavior when omitted. Basic meaning added, but format details missing.

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 it lists all invoices with optional date range filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like timeiq_invoice_get (single invoice) and timeiq_invoice_list_for_client (client-specific), making the tool's role 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 listing invoices with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like timeiq_invoice_list_for_client or timeiq_billing_invoices. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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