invoice_processing__list_inventory_incoming_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly notes MCP server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds) and advises caching, which is not implied by annotations and helps the agent manage rate limits. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by essential operational hints (ID source and throttling). Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 list operation with 3 parameters and read-only annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the ID source and rate limiting, which are the main operational concerns. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable given the name implies a list. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose.

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 schema itself provides descriptions for 'from', 'to', and 'organizationId' (e.g., 'Period start date (YYYY-MM-DD format)'), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for organizationId by specifying where to get it (organizations__get_organizations), which is not in the schema. This extra pointer improves parameter understanding, though it does not add details on 'from' and 'to' beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists incoming invoices (приходных накладных) for a period, using a specific verb 'list' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like outgoing invoices by the term 'incoming'. It lacks an explicit statement about what it does not do, but the name and description are 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 provides practical usage guidance: it tells where to obtain organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) and gives a caching recommendation due to throttling. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_inventory_incoming_returned_invoices) or when not to use it. It focuses on operational context rather than selection criteria.

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