Get wFirma invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the company must be explicitly selected; it does not add behavioral details such as response shape or error conditions, but the annotation bar is high.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action ('Read one invoice') and then the scope. Every word 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 low-complexity read-one tool with two fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. No output schema is present, but 'Read one invoice' clearly conveys the expected result.

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%, with both parameters already documented (id as wFirma record id; companyId as internal id from wfirma_list_companies and 'Never use a NIP here'). The description's 'explicitly selected' phrase mildly reinforces companyId semantics but does not materially add beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one invoice') and adds a scope qualifier ('from one explicitly selected wFirma client company'), making it easy to distinguish from list_invoices. The word 'one' explicitly sets it apart from sibling listing 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 phrase 'one explicitly selected wFirma client company' gives clear context: use this when a single invoice for a known company is needed. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives such as wfirma_list_invoices for fetching multiple invoices.

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