invoice_received_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical and non-obvious behavior: the 'nazFirmy'/'firma' fields identify the supplier/counterparty, not the receiving company, and the result set is restricted to the bound company. This addresses the most likely misinterpretations for a read operation.

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 two purposeful sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the verb and resource, and the second efficiently packs the important scope caveat and field semantics. Every sentence 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 read-only retrieval tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious traps: company binding and field interpretation. It does not discuss combinations of ids/kod, but those are optional and schema-documented, so no critical invocation knowledge appears missing.

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 the baseline is 3; all four parameters are already documented with descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance and does not clarify how ids and kod interact or whether they can be combined.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'received invoices' from AbraFlexi, including the Czech evidence name '(faktura-prijata)'. It removes ambiguity about directionality by clarifying these are invoices received BY the bound company, distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoice_issued_get.

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 gives clear usage context: results are scoped to the AbraFlexi company bound to the server, and querying another company's received invoices from this server is impossible. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as invoice_issued_get, but the scope and exclusion are clearly communicated.

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