invoice_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload surface (customer, lines, totals, payment attempts, hosted link), which is the only source of return-value information given there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for an unknown invoice_id, which keeps it below 5.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource identity followed by the returned fields. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately covers both what the tool targets and what comes back. The remaining gap is the identifier format and failure mode for an invalid or non-existent invoice, which a caller would need in practice.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema contributes nothing about invoice_id. The description indirectly implies it is a Stripe invoice identifier via 'One Stripe invoice', but never states the expected format (e.g. the 'in_' prefix) or whether it accepts an internal vs. external ID. Partial compensation, not full.

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 names a specific resource (a single Stripe invoice) and enumerates the content it returns: customer, lines, totals, payment attempts, hosted link. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like receivables, payouts, or disputes. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'), reading as a noun phrase, which is the only reason it isn't a 5.

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 implied by the singular-resource framing and the required invoice_id, so an agent can infer 'look up one known invoice'. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance is given, and with a sibling like 'receivables' that also surfaces invoice-level data, the description should have stated the selection rule (single known invoice vs. aggregate listing).

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