get_invoices_formatted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the transformations applied (chain/token naming, wei→native conversion, open-time derivation). However it says nothing about pagination, default limit behavior, ordering, or auth requirements for a read endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first line, followed by a scannable bullet list of transformations. No filler sentences, though the bullets slightly restate the notion of "formatting" already implied by the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the shape of the returned data (named chains/tokens, converted amounts, derived open time), which is exactly what an agent needs. It is only mildly incomplete in omitting pagination and default retrieval size.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both limit and status are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, such as allowed status values or default limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get invoices from Everclear") and clarifies the variant's distinctive behavior via the "enhanced formatting" list. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_invoices, but never names it explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 enhancement list implies you'd pick this over get_invoices when you want human-readable output, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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