get_sent_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, what happens if the invoice is not found, or any side effects. The minimal description implies a read operation but offers no additional behavioral context.

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 highly concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to clarity, but the brevity leaves out useful details.

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 the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks comparison to sibling tools and behavioral details, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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?

The single parameter 'invoice_id' is described as 'numeric ID' in the description, but the schema already defines it as an integer. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as range constraints or formatting expectations.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'sent invoice', and specifies the lookup method 'by its numeric ID'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_sent_invoice_by_identifier', which presumably uses a different identifier type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sent_invoice_by_identifier' or under what conditions it is appropriate. The only implied usage is that you have a numeric ID.

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