get_invoice_details

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get full details' implies read-only, but there is no explicit statement about safety or side effects. The tool likely only retrieves data, but this is not confirmed, nor is the scope of 'full details' explained.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description could be more complete. It omits explanation of expand_lines, the meaning of 'full details,' and any prerequisites or response format. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies invoice_id as numeric, which adds value over the schema's integer type. However, expand_lines (optional boolean) is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. Partial compensation for one parameter.

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's action ('Get full details'), resource ('single AP invoice'), and key identifier ('by its numeric InvoiceId'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ar_invoice_details (AR vs AP) and get_payment_details (different resource).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over search_invoices for listing or when to use expand_lines. There is no mention of context or limitations.

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