Get Posted Financial Invoices

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true. The description adds behavioral details: it enforces a maximum of 100 invoices per call and supports pagination via startIndex and retrieveSize parameters. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying limits and pagination behavior.

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 concise: a single sentence summarizing the main functionality followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit return structure, the description adequately covers the input but lacks detail on the output format (e.g., fields of an invoice). However, the tool name and annotations provide some context. It is moderately complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 50% (startDate and endDate have descriptions in schema, but startIndex and retrieveSize do not). The description compensates by listing all parameters with types, optionality, defaults, and constraints (e.g., ISO 8601 format, max 100 for retrieveSize). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it returns posted financial invoices with an optional date range and a max of 100 per call. The verb 'returns' and resource 'posted financial invoices' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_carrier_invoices by specifying 'posted' invoices, though it doesn't explicitly contrast.

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 (e.g., get_carrier_invoices). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or best practices. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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