get_invoice_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the result is Base64 content, providing useful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. Every word is informative and the description is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only tool: it specifies the input (implicitly via schema), the output format (Base64), and its safe nature (via annotations). The output schema exists, so return details are not needed.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter invoice_id, but it does not. However, the single integer parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so a moderate score 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 specifies the verb 'Descarga' (download) and the resource 'PDF de la factura' (invoice PDF), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_invoice (returns invoice data) and get_invoice_public_link (returns a link).

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 states the tool's purpose but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like get_invoice_public_link or send_invoice_email. The context implies it is for obtaining the PDF file content directly.

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