List Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by specifying the return shape ({total, invoices[]}) and including that it returns full line_items and payment state.

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 front-loaded and relatively concise, but it combines all information in a single paragraph. The contradiction with the schema reduces trust.

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 9 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, the description adequately provides return structure and usage context. The contradiction is a gap but overall completeness is good.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description contradicts the schema on limit default (says 50, schema says 20) and max (says 200, schema says 100), which will mislead an agent. It does add some explanatory context for filters like overdue_only.

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 ('Search and filter invoices') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting the tool's output includes full line_items and payment state, with explicit use cases for dashboards and driving invoice_remind/invoice_risk workflows.

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 advises when to use this tool ('build dashboards or drive invoice_remind/invoice_risk workflows') and documents optional filters and pagination. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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