search_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description 'List/filter invoices' does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, sorting, or response format. Since annotations handle the safety dimensions, a 3 is appropriate for this neutral but non-contradictory addition.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides a targeted usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description remains extremely thin. It does not outline available filters, pagination semantics, or any use case nuance beyond the owner preference. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no parameter documentation, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it with confidence in varied scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters, and the description does not mention any parameter details or meanings. The agent is left to infer semantics from names like status, start_date, and customer_id, which may be insufficient for correct invocation. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's function with the verb 'List/filter' and specifies the resource 'invoices'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming who_owes_me_money and how_much_money for owner-specific queries, making the scope precise.

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 gives explicit guidance to prefer who_owes_me_money or how_much_money for owners, which helps an agent choose an alternative. However, it does not enumerate other potential alternatives (e.g., get_invoice, search_payments) or provide deep context on when search_invoices is the right choice beyond the general list/filter role.

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