get_invoice

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Obtenir' clearly signals a read operation, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned data categories (lines, payments, status, amounts), providing useful behavioral detail beyond simple 'get invoice'.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence in French. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds valuable specifics without unnecessary verbosity.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents (lines, payments, status, amounts). It could mention edge cases like not-found behavior, but this is not essential for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, describing it as 'ID de la facture'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Obtenir' (get) with the resource 'facture' (invoice), and specifies the exact scope: 'lignes, paiements, statut, montants' (lines, payments, status, amounts). This clearly distinguishes it from list_invoices and other invoice-related tools.

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 description implies the primary use case: when you need full details of a single invoice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is the fetch-by-ID tool for invoices, especially given the sibling list_invoices.

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