fin.query_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a search/filter operation, implying non-mutating behavior, and mentions return content (payment methods, bank transfer info). However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, pagination, or other limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the verb and resource, then lists filter criteria and return details. Two sentences, no filler, every word adds value.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema). The description covers purpose, filters, and return content, which is quite complete for a query tool. Lack of output schema is offset by mentioning return details, though it omits combinability or default behaviors—not critical here.

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 description coverage is 100%—all three parameters have clear descriptions. The description merely echoes schema (status, customer, min_amount) without adding extra format, units, or combination logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search and filter') and identifies the resource ('customer invoices') with clear filtering criteria (status, customer name, minimum amount). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like process_payment or wire_transfer by indicating a read/query operation.

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 this is for querying invoices and returning details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There's no explicit mention of 'use this instead of X' or 'not for payments'.

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