hcp_list_invoices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: no server-side filtering, invoice items are inline so no nested calls are needed, and prices are converted from cents to dollars. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool does, its limitation, the alternative, and two important data-format traits. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 the output schema exists, the read-only annotations, and only two optional pagination parameters, the description covers the essential call-time knowledge. It explains the main caveats (no filtering, inline items, currency conversion) and routes to the correct sibling when needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description carries the burden. It only implies page/page_size relate to pagination via 'No server-side filtering available', but does not explain page semantics, zero-indexing, or pagination behavior. The two optional parameters remain mostly undocumented.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'invoices', and differentiates itself from the sibling tool hcp_list_job_invoices by noting the alternative for job-specific invoices. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose statement.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: for job-specific invoices, use hcp_list_job_invoices(job_id) instead. It also states that no server-side filtering is available, so the agent knows pagination is the only control. This is strong usage guidance.

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