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 burden for behavior. It clearly says the operation lists and returns sorted metadata, which implies a read-only behavior. Still, it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, authorization needs, or whether the operation can be called repeatedly without side effects.

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?

The description is terse, with no filler or repetition, and front-loads the key action before the return details. Every clause adds useful information regarding what is listed and how the results are ordered.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies that results are metadata records and sorted, and a provided output schema likely details the fields. It could still mention whether the list is global or could grow very large, but the core call semantics are well covered.

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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter information missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all archived invoices'. It also specifies the return content and ordering ('archive metadata records sorted by archive date'), which differentiates it from siblings like it__retrieve_archived_invoice (single retrieval) and it__archive_invoice (write action).

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 use case is implied by 'List all archived invoices' and the metadata-record return type, so an agent can infer this is for enumerating archived invoices rather than retrieving one. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives (e.g., it__retrieve_archived_invoice for invoice content).

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