Get Carrier Invoice Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. Description adds that it returns entries with optional status filtering, but does not address pagination, result limits, or sorting. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and a bullet list. No redundant words, front-loaded with the core action. Every element serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with 2 parameters, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, identifies required and optional inputs, and covers filtering. Lacks mention of return structure (no output schema) but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, providing clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates parameter names and types but adds no additional semantic context like allowed status values or format of carrierInvoiceId. Baseline 3 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?

Describes the tool as 'Gets carrier invoice line entries with optional status filtering.' The verb 'gets' and resource 'carrier invoice line entries' clearly define its action, and the name distinguishes it from the sibling 'machship_get_carrier_invoices' which retrieves invoices themselves.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Context implies use when needing line entries of a carrier invoice, but no mention of alternatives like seeking invoice summaries or other filtering capabilities. Agent would rely on schema and name cues.

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