autotask_get_invoice_details

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the tool returns an invoice with line items, indicating a read operation, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing invoice ID), permissions required, or limitations on data volume.

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 redundant information, front-loaded with the core action and key detail (nested line items). Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description could provide more detail about the returned structure (e.g., fields of an invoice). However, the tool name and description together give a reasonable idea. Minimal but adequate for low complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (invoiceId). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it gets a single invoice with nested line items, distinguishing from sibling tools that handle tickets, companies, etc. The verb+resource is specific and the description includes the purpose (finance workflows).

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?

Mentions use case ('finance workflows that need to see exactly what an invoice contains'), providing context for when to use. However, does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like search_invoices for listing.

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