teamleader_invoices_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the pagination limit ('Returns max 100 per page') and the filter options, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the return format, default sorting, or whether filters combine as AND/OR, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences with the core purpose first, then filtering capabilities and pagination limit. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It clarifies pagination and filter categories, which helps an agent select the tool, but lacks details on return content, ordering, or the meaning of customer_type. It meets the minimum viable threshold but does not fully compensate for missing structured context.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a grouping of filters (status, customer, date) that provides context beyond individual schema entries, but it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional details for customer_type or term.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'List invoices from Teamleader Focus.' It also specifies filtering capabilities (status, customer, date) and pagination, distinguishing it from single-invoice tools like teamleader_invoice_info and other resource-specific list tools.

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 provides clear usage context by indicating what the tool does (listing with filters) and hints at when it would be appropriate (when needing multiple invoices). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a single invoice's full details are needed (favoring teamleader_invoice_info).

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