gorelo_get_invoice

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing that the response is expanded to include attachments and line items, which tells an agent it need not make follow-up calls. It omits any note on not-found behavior or whether expansions are optional.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payload contents attached as a qualifier. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the invoice plus attachments and line items) and the annotation covers safety. Minor gaps remain around missing-ID behavior and whether the expansions are always present.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents invoiceId. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets one invoice') and the singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling gorelo_list_invoices. It stops short of naming the list alternative explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for fetching a single invoice by ID rather than enumerating them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of gorelo_list_invoices as the alternative, and no prerequisites or error conditions described.

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