list_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the status code mapping already present in the schema. It does not mention read-only behavior, pagination details, potential side effects, or any other non-obvious traits, leaving the agent to infer these from the tool name and parameter schema.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and filter options. The second sentence provides the status code mapping, which is useful context even if it overlaps with the schema, resulting in no wasted words.

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 straightforward list tool with five well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and filter capabilities. However, it does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's 'limit' default, nor explain the sqlfilters syntax beyond the schema example, leaving minor gaps in context.

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 provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'statut, tiers, date' is essentially a summary of the schema's parameter descriptions and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Lister' (list) with the resource 'factures' (invoices) and explicitly mentions advanced filters on status, third party, and date. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and implies customer invoices, distinguishing it from the sibling list_supplier_invoices.

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 phrase 'avec filtres avancés' implies the tool is for listing invoices with filtering, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus alternatives like list_supplier_invoices or get_invoice. There are no when-not or alternative recommendations, so usage context is only implied.

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