housecallpro_get_invoice

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the compact view returns both cents and dollars, the server derives tax_cents/tax_usd and is_paid, and invoices carry no line items. This gives the agent an accurate expectation of the payload.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose and return summary, compact-view currency behavior, and a caution about missing line items. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description clearly tells the agent what to expect in the response and what not to expect. The view parameter is further explained in the schema, so the description plus schema together provide sufficient context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the default compact-view behavior and the 'no line items' caveat, which the schema does not state. This pushes it slightly above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an invoice a Housecall Pro contractor sent you,' then enumerates the key returned information (amount, subtotal, tax, balance due, payability). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_estimate by targeting invoices specifically and noting the summary-only scope.

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 gives a clear context: use this when you have an invoice link from a contractor. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus get_estimate or list_links. The resource type makes the intended use obvious, but exclusion conditions are absent.

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