client_invoice_upload_show

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

The description implies a read-only operation (show), which is appropriate for a retrieval tool. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what is obvious from the name. For a simple operation, this is minimally acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. While brevity is valued, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (two required UUID parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify what 'upload details' include (e.g., file name, date, status), which could aid the agent.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (UUID types). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the action 'show' and the resource 'upload details for a client invoice'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like client_invoice_show (shows invoice details) or client_invoice_upload (uploads), leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having uploaded a file first, or any context where viewing upload details is appropriate.

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