bokio_list_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds one useful scope caveat about journal-entry revenue, but says nothing about pagination defaults, ordering, or query-field limitations — the schema only documents syntax, not 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by the exclusion/alternative. No filler, every clause 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?

For a read-only paged list tool with an output schema, full param documentation, and annotations, this covers the key risk of confusing it with ledger/open-item reporting. Minor gap: no note on what the returned invoice records contain or whether credit notes are included, which would help against the credit-note siblings.

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%, so page/pageSize/query/companyId are fully documented in the schema, including the && filter example. The description only restates 'paging' and 'raw query filter' without adding constraints beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list customer invoices') plus the two capabilities (paging, raw query filter). It separates the tool from journal-entry-based revenue reporting, though it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like bokio_list_supplier_invoices 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 excludes one case ('revenue booked as journal entries is not listed here') and routes the agent to bokio_account_ledger and bokio_open_items instead. This is real when-not-to-use guidance, though no positive triggers (e.g., when invoicing data is preferred) are given.

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