alga_invoices_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the list/search view is not the "full details," implying a leaner payload in the siblings, but it says nothing about missing-ID behavior or what a not-found response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the usage note follows. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read with annotations covering safety, this covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool. The absence of an output schema means return shape is unstated, but "full details" sets a reasonable expectation for a simple fetch.

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 only semantics come from the description, which at least establishes that the sole parameter is an invoice identifier obtainable from a prior list or search. It adds no detail on the accepted ID format or constraints, leaving that to the schema's pattern and length rules.

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?

"Get one invoice by ID" gives a specific verb (get), a specific resource (invoice), and an explicit cardinality (one), which cleanly separates it from alga_invoices_list and alga_invoices_items_list. It does not name a sibling directly, but the singular scope makes the distinction 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?

"Use after a list or search to see full details" states the sequencing context in which this tool is the right choice, which is exactly the decision an agent faces. It gives no explicit when-not condition, but for a single-record fetch that omission is minor.

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