invoice_processing__get_inventory_sales_document

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds beyond that by disclosing a concrete MCP-server rate limit (10 requests per 60 seconds) and advising dialog caching. This is valuable operational behavior that the schema and annotations do not provide.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose, ID sourcing, and throttling. The critical information is front-loaded and each sentence 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 simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, organizationId provenance, and throttling. However, it omits how to obtain documentId, does not mention the obvious list sibling that provides document IDs, and does not summarize what the response contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, but it only explains where to get organizationId; documentId is not explained at all, and additional_properties is ignored. The guidance 'organizationId → organizations__get_organizations' helps one parameter but leaves the other key identifier semantically under-specified.

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 identifies the resource as the sales document and specifies retrieval by ID, which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like invoice_processing__list_inventory_sales_documents. It lacks an explicit verb (the Russian phrase is a noun phrase, 'Sales document by id'), so it falls just short of the strongest tier.

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 gives useful context: it tells the agent where to obtain organizationId and warns about throttling with a caching recommendation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the list alternative or any other sibling, leaving the selection criteria implied rather than stated.

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