List billing history (invoices)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it notes pagination, lists the response fields (including links to Stripe PDF/receipt/hosted invoice page), and explicitly states 'Read-only' (redundant but consistent). This helps the agent know what to expect from the output.

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, information-dense sentence followed by two short labels ('Paginated. Read-only.'). Every word adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No fluff.

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 with 3 optional, well-documented parameters. No output schema, but the description enumerates all returned fields and notes pagination. Annotations cover safety and determinism hints. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter (page, per_page, payable_only). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning pagination and 'whether payable', which are already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List your Crown Town Compost invoices', and enumerates the exact fields returned (number, date, amount, status, payable, links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_service_history or list_upcoming_services.

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 when to use it: any time the user needs billing/invoice history. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no sibling tool overlaps, so the guidance is adequate.

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