List billing history (invoices)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds behavioral details beyond those: it mentions 'Paginated' and specifies the output fields (including Stripe links). This extra context is valuable and does not contradict any annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the key output attributes. Every phrase adds value—'Read-only' reinforces safety, 'Paginated' signals behavior, and the field enumeration sets expectations. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it states what it lists, the fields included, pagination, and safety. An agent can call it correctly without needing additional details. It omits error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, per_page, payable_only). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'List your Crown Town Compost invoices' and enumerates the specific fields returned (number, date, amount, status, payable flag, links). This verb-resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_service_history and list_upcoming_services, which serve different data domains.

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 invoice-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The title 'List billing history (invoices)' reinforces the domain, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use list_service_history for services.' The context is clear but not explicit about selection criteria.

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