get_invoice_numbers_expanded

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return format but does not state if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly improved with bullet points for return fields, but still effective.

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 two simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks explanation of 'expanded' meaning, default period assumption, and relation to sibling tools. Adequate but not thorough.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (tax_month and invoice_header). The description adds no additional parameter details, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns expanded invoice numbers with AESKEY and random numbers per invoice, distinguishing it from a basic list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_invoice_numbers' tool, which likely returns a simpler list.

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 over alternatives such as 'get_invoice_numbers' or 'get_next_period_numbers_expanded'. The context signals show many siblings, but description provides no selection criteria.

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