teamleader_get_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'get detailed information' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, what data is included in the response, or how errors like non-existent IDs are handled. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but this is not made explicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific invoice'). It contains zero wasted words and is easily parseable, making it optimally concise.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., invoice lines, totals, status) to set expectations. The current description leaves that ambiguous.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with the 'id' parameter described as 'The invoice ID'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that the ID references a specific invoice. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 retrieves detailed information for a specific invoice, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It is distinct enough from list/download siblings based on the verb 'get' and 'detailed information', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of similar tools like teamleader_invoices_download or teamleader_list_invoices. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to first list invoices to obtain an ID, or any context for when this tool is appropriate.

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