bokio_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'as Bokio returns it' adds value beyond annotations by signaling a raw, unnormalized pass-through payload rather than a curated view. It does not discuss error behavior or payload size, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation clauses trailing. Every phrase (single-record scope, raw shape, sibling routing) carries 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?

With no output schema, the description at least tells the agent the returned shape is Bokio's own representation rather than a normalized object. It leaves the actual field set ambiguous and says nothing about size or nulls, so it is complete enough to call correctly but not to predict the response.

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 coverage is 100%: invoiceId's provenance ('Id from bokio_list_invoices', not-found behavior) and companyId's fallback to BOKIO_COMPANY_ID are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one customer invoice by id'), makes the single-record scope explicit, and names the two sibling tools an agent might confuse it with (PDF download, payments). An agent can distinguish this from bokio_list_invoices and bokio_get_supplier_invoice without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for PDFs ('Use bokio_download_invoice') and for payment data ('bokio_list_invoice_payments'), which covers the two most likely alternative intents. It does not state when the tool should not be used (e.g., when only a summary of many invoices is wanted), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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