list_supplier_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses status values but does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, filter usage, or return format. It leaves the agent to infer basic behavior from the name.

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 extremely concise, with the core action and status mapping in a single line. It front-loads the key information without any filler.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context such as pagination defaults, filter syntax, and what response to expect. It does not differentiate from list_invoices (customer invoices), which is a nearby sibling, except by the word 'fournisseurs'.

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 only 20% (status has a description). The description clarifies status 1 as 'Validée/Impayée', adding meaning to that parameter, but it offers no explanation for page, limit, sqlfilters, or thirdparty_ids. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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' with the resource 'factures fournisseurs' (supplier invoices), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_invoices' which likely handles customer invoices. The status mapping provides additional scoping.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_invoices or list_supplier_orders. Sibling tools are not referenced, and no exclusions or specific use cases are mentioned.

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