External Invoices List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the API is unstable, the endpoint and API version, the required scope, and a 50-item per_page cap. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only list this is strong added disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the unstable-API warning, then endpoint/scope/return shape in a compact telegraphic style. Minor redundancy between 'unstable API' and 'API version: unstable' costs it a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the response envelope (count/page/per_page/has_more/next_page/items), plus endpoint, scope and the stability caveat. Sufficient for correct invocation, though it omits any note on ordering or empty-result behavior.

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 already documents page, fields, order_id, per_page and response_format. The description only restates the per_page cap (already in the schema) and adds nothing about fields/response_format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List external fiscal invoices of an order', which is distinguishable from tiendanube_orders_invoices_list (regular invoices) and tiendanube_external_invoices_get by name alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'of an order' and the required read_orders scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling invoice list/get tools. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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