Get Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'list', such as pagination behavior, default page size, or that the date parameters act as a range filter. Agents need to know that page and page_size control pagination; the description omits this.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It states the purpose but does not use bullet points or highlight key features. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 no output schema and numerous sibling tools, the description should mention the response format (e.g., array of invoice objects) and differentiate from similar tools. The optional nature of all parameters and the default pagination are not addressed. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, so all parameters are described with clear meanings (e.g., 'Page number', 'Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of invoices from Siigo. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'siigo_get_invoice' (singular) which likely retrieves a single invoice, nor from other list tools like 'siigo_get_credit_notes'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of invoices' are specific enough for a basic purpose.

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 such as 'siigo_get_invoice' for a single invoice or other list tools. There is no mention of the optional filters (created_start, created_end) or pagination, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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