List wFirma invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior (one selected company) but does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the verb, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 paginated list with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description plus schema is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is minor because the tool is a straightforward list operation, though an explicit note about the return shape would make it fully complete.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, with companyId, page, and limit fully documented, including the note to never use a NIP. The description reinforces the companyId scope but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('invoices') and adds a clear scoping constraint ('one explicitly selected wFirma client company'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wfirma_get_invoice (single invoice) and wfirma_list_expenses (different document type).

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 'for one explicitly selected wFirma client company' implies a prerequisite: the agent must first select a company and supply its companyId. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as wfirma_get_invoice or wfirma_list_expenses.

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