bokio_list_invoice_settlements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint (settlements are per-invoice, not account-wide) and names the three settlement kinds. It says nothing about ordering, totals, or whether an invoice with no settlements returns an empty list versus an error, which the schema only partially implies.

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, zero filler: the first defines the resource, the second routes the agent to the sibling. The resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the payoffs.

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?

Output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description only needs to convey scope and disambiguation, which it does. A minor gap is what a 'settlement' means relative to the invoice balance, but the three enumerated types largely cover it.

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%, with invoiceId, companyId, page, pageSize, and query all documented in the schema, including the note that an unknown invoiceId returns a not-found error. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so 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 ('List the settlements on one invoice') and enumerates what a settlement contains: currency differences, bank fees, payment-service fees. This makes the jargon term self-explanatory and separates it from the payments sibling, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other invoice-related tools like bokio_get_invoice or bokio_list_credit_notes.

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 names the alternative for a commonly confused case: 'Payments are listed by bokio_list_invoice_payments.' That is a clear when-to-use-which rule. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when-not to call, but the core routing decision is resolved.

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