list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the warning 'NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead,' which is meaningful behavioral context about failure handling. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by type definitions and a critical warning. No excessive detail or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, filtering dimensions, type semantics, and a failure behavior warning. It does not explain the output structure (no output schema) or pagination behavior explicitly, which leaves some uncertainty for a tool with seven parameters, though the schema covers those details.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by grouping the type codes into invoices, credit notes, and debit notes, which is semantic information not present in the schema's flat list. This grouping helps agents choose appropriate type values.

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 'List' with the resource 'invoices' and lists filter dimensions (date, type, point of sale). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_invoice by implying plural listing rather than singular retrieval, and the type code breakdown clarifies the scope.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invoice or other list_* tools. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, so an agent receives no guidance for tool selection beyond the tool name.

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