invoice_get

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already inform the agent about safety and idempotence. The description adds little beyond stating it returns 'full details', which is consistent with the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence of 10 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only operation) and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks details about the return structure, but since there is no output schema, an agent can infer it returns the full invoice object.

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 schema already provides a description for the invoiceId parameter ('Invoice UUID') with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'by its UUID' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('full details of a single invoice'), and the method to identify it ('by its UUID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like invoice_search and invoice_get_pdf.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied: when you have a UUID and need full invoice details. However, the absence of exclusion or alternative references leaves room for improvement given the number of sibling tools.

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