List invoices

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint by detailing the invoice structure: number, subject, list section, and raw metadata rows in `details`, including the caveat that amounts/dates are kept raw due to state-dependent row appearance. This adds genuine transparency about data fidelity and variability.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope, and the second sentence packs essential details without fluff. The first sentence is a fragment ('Invoices a provider has sent...') rather than a complete sentence, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return content and the raw metadata behavior. It omits pagination or any limits, but for a simple list tool with strong annotations, it's sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a clear description for the `hub` parameter, the description need not add more. It doesn't, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool's scope as invoices sent through Jobber and distinguishes it from sibling tools for appointments, quotes, and work requests. However, it lacks an explicit verb ('lists', 'returns'), relying on the title for the action, and instead starts with a noun phrase.

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 clearly signals context: it's for invoices a provider has sent, and explicitly states 'Read-only; this cannot pay anything,' which warns against using it for payment actions. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the separation from sibling list tools is implicit.

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