teamleader_list_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that filtering and pagination are supported, which is useful, but it does not mention the read-only nature, response format, or any pagination details beyond what the schema already provides. The behavior is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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?

Despite 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief and does not explain response contents or default behavior. It would benefit from stating that it returns a paginated list of invoices or how to use filters effectively. The schema covers parameters, but overall context is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 description need not repeat parameter details. It adds only a high-level phrase 'optional filtering and pagination', which restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('List'), resource ('invoices'), and system ('Teamleader Focus'), and notes optional filtering and pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like teamleader_get_invoice (single invoice) and teamleader_create_invoice (creation).

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving multiple invoices with optional filters and pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the list-vs-get distinction is clear from the verb and sibling context. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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