Orders Invoices List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required OAuth scope (read_orders) and the API version, which affect whether the call will succeed. With no output schema, the return envelope is also useful 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?

Four short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then endpoint, scope, version, and return shape. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 compensates by naming the response envelope fields, and the fully documented parameters plus scope requirement make the tool callable without further inference. It could go further by noting the external-invoice per_page cap or how it differs from external_invoices_list, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, with page/per_page/fields/response_format all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the paginated envelope ({count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page}) hints at pagination but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List invoices attached to an order'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tiendanube_orders_invoices_create and reasonably distinct from tiendanube_external_invoices_list by scoping to a single order. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative invoice-listing tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the invoices belonging to one order. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to tiendanube_external_invoices_list for standalone invoices. The 'Required scope: read_orders' line is a prerequisite, not selection guidance.

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