List invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields: detail="full" expands to line items and payments and caps pages at 25, a constraint that is not expressed in the schema's pageSize maximum of 100. It does not discuss rate limits or result ordering beyond what the schema declares.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the returned fields front-loaded and the filters grouped into a single enumeration. The one behavioral caveat (page size under full detail) is placed where it is needed, right after the parameter it modifies.

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 15-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description gives enough to select filters and understand the summary-vs-full tradeoff, and annotations handle safety. The remaining gap is that a few filters (amountDue, sort) are never mentioned, though the schema documents them.

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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds a little — the parenthetical gloss on sourceId's origin and the 25-item page cap under full detail — but leaves amountDue, sort, businessId, page and pageSize entirely to the schema. Adequate rather than additive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List invoices") and immediately names the fields returned (totals, amount due, status), which cleanly distinguishes it from single-invoice readers like wave_get_invoice in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 filter inventory implicitly tells the agent this is the tool for querying invoices by status/customer/date/number/currency/source, and the note that detail="full" adds line items and restricts pages to 25 hints at when to accept the extra cost. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to wave_get_invoice for single-record retrieval.

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