invoiceninja_list_credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds behavior annotations don't: related names are auto-resolved (client_name), and the semantics/format of extra_filters keys and date ranges. It doesn't cover pagination limits or result ordering, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid added value.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds the necessary reference detail (client_status values, extra_filters keys, related-name resolution, hand-off to get_credit). The extra_filters enumeration is dense but each entry carries real syntax an agent needs; little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining auto-resolved related names and pointing to get_credit for the full record. For an 11-parameter read tool with zero required params, this is close to complete, though the shape of the list response (pagination metadata, field selection interaction with response_format) is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully exceeds it: the schema defers extra_filters documentation to the description ('see the tool description') and the description enumerates every key with date syntax and semantics, plus the valid client_status values. That said, some params (include, filter, sort) are only covered by the schema itself.

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+resource ('List credits from Invoice Ninja') with the scope of capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling invoiceninja_get_credit by naming that tool and the condition under which to use it.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use invoiceninja_get_credit with an id from this list for the full record,' which tells the agent when to graduate from list to get. It stops short of stating when not to use this list (e.g. when a single known id is already available), so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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