bokio_get_supplier_invoice

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: 'as Bokio returns it' signals a raw passthrough with no normalization, and the attachment/download hint is behavior an agent would otherwise only discover by trying it. It doesn't mention error behavior, but the schema already covers the not-found case.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious operational hint. Nothing is wasted.

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-only by-id getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it returns (the raw Bokio representation) and how to get the attached file. A brief note on the return shape would push it higher, but that is a minor gap.

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% -- both companyId (with BOKIO_COMPANY_ID default) and supplierInvoiceId (id from bokio_list_supplier_invoices, unknown id returns not-found) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' and adds nothing new, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get one supplier invoice by id', which cleanly separates it from the sibling bokio_list_supplier_invoices. It also names bokio_list_supplier_invoices' output implicitly as the id source, though it doesn't say so explicitly in the description itself.

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 follow-up sentence routes the agent to bokio_download_upload when an attached file exists, which is a concrete alternative-selection cue. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. prefer the list tool for browsing or searching).

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