invoiceninja_get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. 'With all details' is a weak signal that conflicts slightly with the schema's response_format default of markdown and its fields/include projection options, which the description never mentions.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-record getter with no output schema, the description plus fully documented parameters are close to sufficient. The one gap is the notable default of markdown output versus json, which lives only in the schema and could matter for an agent expecting structured data.

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%: id format, fields projection, include relations and response_format semantics are all documented in the schema with examples. The description's 'hashed id' merely restates the schema and adds nothing about fields, include, or the markdown-vs-json default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one client') plus the lookup key ('by its hashed id'), which cleanly separates it from invoiceninja_list_clients and from get_* siblings for other resources. It stops short of explicitly naming the list alternative, but the singular-vs-plural distinction is self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one client' versus the sibling list_clients, and the required hashed id signals you must already know the record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a search or list call, and no prerequisite note that the id must be obtained first.

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