cork_get_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the listing behavior, the UUID output purpose, and the distributor/partner_uuid scoping nuance, but it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or error/authorization handling.

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 adding distinct value: what the tool lists, what it returns and why, and when a specific parameter is needed. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with only optional parameters, the description plus schema is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like response envelope and non-distributor partner_uuid behavior exist, but they do not block successful use.

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?

The schema already describes page and page_size, and the description adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented partner_uuid by explaining the distributor condition and scoping behavior. This compensates for the 67% schema description 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('billing invoices'), then clarifies the output as invoice UUIDs needed by cork_get_invoice_line_items. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling line-items tool.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: list invoices to obtain UUIDs for the downstream line-items tool, and if the caller is a distributor, scope with partner_uuid. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name a direct alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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