Get Invoice PDF

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the PDF is returned as base64, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., file size limits, content details).

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 a single sentence of 5 words, no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action and output format.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the output format (base64), which is useful. Missing minor details like whether the PDF is the invoice document itself, but overall sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Invoice ID'. The description does not add anything beyond that, so baseline 3.

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 'Get invoice PDF as base64' specifies the verb (get), resource (invoice PDF), and output format (base64). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_get_invoice (returns invoice data) and siigo_get_invoice_xml (returns XML).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like siigo_get_invoice or siigo_get_credit_note_pdf.

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