it__list_archived_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a reasonable job: it reveals that the operation is a read-only listing and that results are sorted by archive date. It could add sort direction or note about empty results, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is fairly transparent.

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 concise sentences contain no filler. The core operation is stated first, and useful behavioral information about the returned records, sorting, is added without redundancy.

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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior and output shape. It says what is returned and the ordering, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly introduces no fake parameters and focuses on the result, which is appropriate for this input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all archived invoices'), then adds what the result contains ('archive metadata records sorted by archive date'). This differentiates the tool from siblings such as it__retrieve_archived_invoice, which implies retrieving a single invoice rather than listing them.

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 phrase 'List all archived invoices' clearly implies the tool is for bulk listing of archive metadata, so the basic usage context is present. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like it__retrieve_archived_invoice, and it provides no exclusions or conditions.

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