Get invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's list of returned components (line items, taxes, discounts, payments, reminders, PDF and customer view links) adds genuine value since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown or unauthorized ID, or whether any invoice state is excluded.

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 short sentence with zero filler, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb, so the agent reads a payload list before understanding the operation. Slightly expanded to "Retrieve one invoice by ID; returns…" it would be both concise and scannable.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is close to adequate, and listing the returned components compensates in part for the absent output schema. However, the description never states the input contract (single invoice ID) or the failure mode, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between this and wave_list_invoices.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both parameters including the businessId default note pointing at wave_get_context. The description adds no meaning about the id parameter or the businessId fallback, so 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?

The description is a noun-phrase fragment — "One invoice with line items, taxes, discounts, payments, reminders, PDF and customer view links" — with no verb; the retrieval action comes only from the title "Get invoice" and the tool name. It does implicitly distinguish itself from wave_list_invoices via "One invoice," but it never states explicitly that it fetches a single invoice by ID.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as wave_list_invoices for browsing or wave_update_invoice/wave_delete_invoice for mutation, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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