bokio_list_supplier_invoices

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 that results are paged and that filtering goes through a raw query string, but says nothing about result ordering, defaults, or the shape of the returned collection.

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 alternative tool routing placed last. 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only profile, so return values need not be explained. The description plus routing note is sufficient to call it correctly, though a hint about which fields the raw query accepts would close the last 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 description coverage is 100% and includes a worked query example and page-size bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'paging and a raw query filter' only mirrors those parameters without adding syntax or constraints of its own.

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 supplier invoices') plus the Swedish synonym, and notes paging and a raw query filter. It does not distinguish itself from bokio_list_invoices (customer invoices) or bokio_get_supplier_invoice, relying on the name to carry that, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 a related task: 'For unpaid supplier debt by age use bokio_open_items on account 2440.' That is a concrete when-to-use-something-else rule; it stops short of stating when this tool should not be used (e.g. fetching a single invoice).

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