invoice_processing__list_finance_document_transactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: MCP-server throttling (max 10 requests per 60 seconds) and a caching recommendation, which go beyond the annotations and help the agent avoid rate-limit errors.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides operational details (ID source, throttling, caching) without any fluff. Every phrase 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 straightforward list operation with two required GUID parameters, the description covers the critical operational aspects: where to get organizationId and rate limiting. It does not explain the output format or where to obtain documentId, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, these gaps are minor.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for documentId and organizationId ('Document identifier (GUID)' and 'Organization identifier (GUID)'). The description adds the source for organizationId, which is useful but not extensive. Since schema coverage is 0% in the description, it partially compensates by giving operational context for one parameter.

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 the tool returns postings/transactions for a document ("Проводки по документу"), which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'document' rather than account, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar finance transaction tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on where to obtain organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) and mentions throttling and caching advice. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_finance_account_transactions, nor does it give exclusions.

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