get_invoice

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details, such as behavior when the invoice_id does not exist, authorization requirements, or data freshness guarantees.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. It could be structured with bullet points for clarity but is acceptably concise for a simple tool.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not mentioning any rate limits, dependencies, or typical use cases. It is minimally adequate.

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 0% (the parameter 'invoice_id' has no description in the schema). The description only says 'by its internal ID', which provides minimal context about the parameter's meaning. It does not specify the format, range, or source of the ID.

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 indicates the tool retrieves complete invoice details by internal ID ('Detalle completo de una factura por su ID interno'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_invoice_pdf' or 'get_invoice_public_link' which serve different purposes. However, it could be more specific about what 'complete detail' entails.

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. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use 'get_invoice' versus 'list_invoices' or 'get_invoice_pdf'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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