invoice_processing__list_inventory_outgoing_invoices

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the MCP-server throttle limit of 10 requests per 60 seconds (explicitly distinguished from the iikoCloud limit) and a recommendation to cache results in the dialogue. This is valuable operational transparency that structured fields 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, each earning its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by ID sourcing and throttling guidance. There is zero filler or repetition of annotation data. Well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the period scope, how to obtain the required organizationId, and the rate limit with a caching strategy. Minor gaps remain: it does not clarify what the response contains or explicitly route away from the lookalike incoming-invoices siblings, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 for parameter semantics. It explicitly addresses organizationId by telling the agent where to source it, which is genuinely helpful. However, it does not explain the from/to period parameters, though the underlying schema internally does document their YYYY-MM-DD format. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not completely.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Список расходных накладных за период' (list outgoing waybills for a period). The word 'расходных' (outgoing) distinguishes it from the sibling list_inventory_incoming_invoices, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. It is essentially a translation of the tool name plus period scoping, which is clear but adds little beyond the name.

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 operational usage guidance: where to obtain the organizationId (via organizations__get_organizations) and a throttling/rate-limit reminder. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, such as when to prefer this over get_inventory_outgoing_invoice or list_inventory_incoming_invoices, nor any exclusions.

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