list_received_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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'list' and the resource, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or that it is a read-only operation. There is no mention of side effects, but for a list tool the absence of explicit safety declaration is still a gap.

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 that immediately starts with the verb and clearly names the resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, making it efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 relatively simple with only optional filters, and the schema covers the params. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., an array of invoices). For a list operation, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the return structure.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (page, status, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable under the baseline for high coverage. The tool description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 ('list'), the specific resource ('received invoices'), and adds the qualifier 'from suppliers' which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_invoices'. The German term 'Eingangsrechnungen' reinforces the exact scope. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 clear context by specifying 'received invoices from suppliers', making it obvious when to use this tool versus a generic invoice listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when not to use' bar.

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