List invoices

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior: statuses are limited to four values, monetary fields are decimal strings, and voided invoices remain in results with a voided_datetime. These details go beyond annotations and schema.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The endpoint is front-loaded, and the follow-up details about statuses, decimal strings, and voided behavior each add meaningful information.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers key response semantics but leaves some parameter behavior undocumented. It does not clarify how is_voided relates to voided_datetime, nor does it describe pagination beyond what the schema's page parameter already states. Overall it is serviceable but not fully complete.

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 only 38%, so the description needed to compensate. It does define status values and reveals output-field semantics that clarify statuses and is_voided, but it does not explain ids, order_ids, company_ids, or the is_voided filter directly. The names are self-explanatory, but the description only partially fills the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool as 'List invoices' with the exact endpoint, then adds distinguishing semantics: status vocabulary, decimal-string formatting, and voided-invoice behavior. This makes it easy to tell apart from sibling list/get tools.

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 resource is clear, so the intended use is implied: list invoices rather than orders, products, or companies. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools or what filtering use cases it best supports.

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