Get Open Invoices

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, pagination limits, or what happens with empty results). It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the action and providing immediate use cases. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 high schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers purpose and typical use cases. It does not mention return format or pagination, but those are partially documented in the schema. The only gap is the name inconsistency, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a search 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds generic filtering context ('optionally filtered by payment status or customer name') but does not extend beyond schema details. Baseline 3 is correct as the description complements but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Search invoices' which is clear, but the tool name is 'get_open_invoices', creating ambiguity about whether it returns only open invoices or all invoices. The use cases given are helpful, but the inconsistency between name and description reduces clarity.

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 suggests using the tool for 'find outstanding balances, track payments, or review billing history', providing some context. However, it does not specify when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools from the sibling list, such as 'search_customers' or 'get_job_details'.

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