list_received_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the basic operation (listing with filters) but omits important behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose and key filters without redundancy. It could be improved by separating the filter list for readability, but it is efficiently front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter capability. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or how filters interact, leaving some contextual gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description lists 4 filter types (company_id, SDI identifier, unread status, VAT/fiscal code) but the actual parameters include 'committente' and 'prestatore', which are not explicitly matched. The mapping is ambiguous, providing incomplete semantic guidance.

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 'List received (incoming) invoices,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_sent_invoices' by explicitly focusing on received invoices, and the filtering options narrow the purpose further.

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 implies usage when listing received invoices, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_received_invoice' for single invoice retrieval or 'list_sent_invoices' for sent invoices. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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