invoice_issued_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: only invoices issued by the server-bound company are returned, and it corrects a likely misinterpretation of the nazFirmy/firma fields as issuer rather than customer. This is useful, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The following sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and field semantics. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given a fully described 8-parameter schema and an output schema, the description adds the most important missing context: the company scope and the meaning of nazFirmy/firma. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could optionally point to invoice_received_get for clarity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, such as how ids, kod, and filter_expr interact. The mentions of nazFirmy/firma are about output fields, not parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get issued invoices (faktura-vydana) from AbraFlexi.' It directly distinguishes issued invoices from received invoices, and the additional context about the issuing company removes ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: to retrieve invoices issued by the bound AbraFlexi company. It also provides an explicit limitation: there is no way to query another company's invoices from this server. It does not explicitly name alternatives like invoice_received_get, but the 'issued invoices' framing makes the boundary clear.

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