List invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: each invoice carries its number, subject, list section, and raw provider metadata in `details`, and it explains that amounts/dates are kept raw because row presence depends on invoice state. This materially helps an agent understand the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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 filler. The first sentence defines the resource, the second explains the returned fields and the nuance around `details`, and the third reinforces read-only behavior. Each sentence carries information needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return shape: number, subject, list section, and raw metadata rows in `details`. The optional `hub` parameter is covered by the schema, and safety is covered by annotations plus the explicit read-only note. A minor gap is that it does not clarify pagination or whether the list is exhaustive despite openWorldHint, but the description is otherwise complete for a simple list tool.

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, `hub`, is fully described in the schema ('Which provider hub to read, by label. Omit when only one is configured.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Invoices a provider has sent through Jobber.' It also names the resource type ('invoices') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobber_list_appointments and jobber_list_quotes. An agent can immediately tell what this tool lists.

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 gives clear context: it is for reading invoices a provider has sent, and it explicitly says 'Read-only; this cannot pay anything,' which rules out payment tasks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific framing makes the intended use clear.

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