List invoices

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain pagination defaults, the effect of full=true, or result ordering, so it adds little value.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the fragment is under-specified and not front-loaded with an action. Conciseness is present, but structure suffers because it never states what the tool does.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only loosely indicates returned fields while omitting pagination behavior and the purpose of the 'full' parameter. The sibling list/get pattern (e.g., list_contracts vs get_contract) is not addressed, leaving the agent without enough context to choose this tool correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters (full, page, itemsInPage) are already well documented. The description lists invoice fields but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation at full schema coverage.

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 the resource (invoices) and hints at fields, but it is a noun phrase rather than a specific verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_invoice tool, leaving the agent to infer the action from the tool 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_invoice or list_contracts. It also does not mention the default pagination behavior or when to use the 'full' parameter, so the agent receives no usage context.

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