list_invoices

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: automatic current year for drafts without specified dates, sort example, and summary functionality reducing tokens. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description supplements with specific query behaviors.

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 relatively concise, conveying key points in a few sentences. It could benefit from better structuring (e.g., bullet points), but it is not verbose and front-loads essential information.

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 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core filtering (issued, dates, sort, summary) but omits many filters and pagination details. The output schema exists, so return values are documented, leaving moderate gaps in completeness.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining issued, dates, sort, and summary parameters. However, many parameters (customer, description, serie, tags, min_total_limit, max_total_limit, page, page_size) are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Clearly states it lists invoices, distinguishes between issued and drafts, and mentions summary mode. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'facturas' are specific, and the description differentiates it from siblings like list_expenses or list_income.

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?

Provides guidance on using the issued parameter to toggle between issued and drafts, mentions automatic year for drafts without dates, and explains the summary parameter for reduced tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools, but the context is clear.

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