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 only states 'List invoices' and filter options, without disclosing return format, pagination behavior, or explicitly confirming it is read-only beyond the name. Minimal behavioral context for a list operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Perfectly concise for a simple list tool.

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 and the schema is complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the return structure or any side effects. It is adequate for basic use but leaves the agent without information about response format.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filters mirrors the schema's status, client_id, and type parameters, adding no new meaning. It neither contradicts nor enhances 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 tool lists invoices, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions filters (status, client, type) and distinguishes from siblings like get_invoice (single invoice) and create_invoice (creation).

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 provides context by naming the filters but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_invoice for a single invoice). It gives a clear sense of when to use the list but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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