list_invoices

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (hasMore, offset/limit clamping, unknown total), ordering (newest-first), and return fields. It also mentions PII-free summaries, hinting at data safety.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words, and it efficiently covers ordering, pagination, and return fields.

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 list tool, it covers pagination, ordering, and return fields. No output schema exists, so the return field list helps. Missing details include error behavior and exact invoice summary structure, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains pagination using limit and offset but does not define offset precisely (e.g., record index). It compensates partially by showing usage pattern 'advance offset by limit'.

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 explicitly states it lists a page of invoices as narrow, PII-free summaries. The verb 'list' and resource 'invoices' are clear. Sibling tools like get_invoice (single invoice detail) and list_transactions (different resource) indicate differentiation.

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 clear pagination instructions (offset/limit, hasMore clamping) and ordering (newest-first). It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for detailed invoices use get_invoice), but the context of 'narrow summaries' implies that.

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