get_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), response format, or whether it returns all invoice details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get specific invoice') and includes the key constraint ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and parameter specifics. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'invoice_id' parameter in the schema, adding meaning that it's an identifier for lookup. However, it doesn't explain the ID format (e.g., numeric, string, UUID), source, or constraints, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 specific invoice by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('invoice'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_invoices' (plural) which presumably lists multiple invoices. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_invoice' or 'create_invoice', missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_invoice' over 'get_invoices' (e.g., for a single known invoice ID vs. listing/searching), nor does it reference other invoice-related tools like 'update_invoice' or 'create_invoice'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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