get_sent_invoice_by_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly implies a read operation but lacks disclosure about error handling (e.g., invoice not found) or any side effects. The behavior is minimal and typical for a getter.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the action and key detail. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and identifier type. It doesn't mention error conditions, but the output schema likely defines the return structure, making the description adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add value. It clarifies that the 'identifier' parameter is an 'SDI identifier string', which adds context beyond the property name, but does not specify format or constraints, limiting its usefulness.

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 'Get' and the resource 'sent invoice', and specifies the lookup key as 'SDI identifier string', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tool 'get_sent_invoice' which likely uses a different identifier.

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 over siblings like 'get_sent_invoice' or 'list_sent_invoices'. It only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions for use.

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