hcp_list_job_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idelmpotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add value about behavior. It discloses that it avoids pagination and that prices are converted from cents to dollars, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema and annotations. No contradiction found.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first names the operation and scope; the second explains performance and data-format benefits. No filler or repetition of annotations or schema.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers its scope, benefit, and a key output transformation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, job_id, is self-explanatory from its name and the description's 'for a specific job' phrase. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the job_id format, origin, or any constraints. The single obvious parameter keeps this at an adequate 3 rather than higher.

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 the verb 'List' and the exact resource 'all invoices for a specific job', making it immediately distinct from the broad hcp_list_invoices sibling. The benefit of avoiding full-list pagination is also made explicit. This is a highly clear 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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when invoices for a single job are needed, rather than paginating the full invoice list. It contrasts with the alternative full-list approach, though it does not name the sibling tool explicitly or state exclusions. Strong but not fully explicit.

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