get_invoices

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

The description implies a read-only operation by stating 'list invoices' and mentions pagination and per-currency totals. Since no annotations are provided, this is adequate but could explicitly confirm no side effects.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a list and a usage tip. Every part adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level view but lacks detail on return structure (e.g., which fields are in each invoice) and pagination behavior. The mention of per-currency totals is helpful but insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it introduces 'per-currency totals' (not in params) and enumerates status buckets (already in enum). It does not explain parameter format or interactions.

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 tool lists invoices with filters and pagination. It specifies the resource and action, but could be more specific about the scope (e.g., for the current user). Among sibling tools, it uniquely handles invoices.

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 advises using the 'search' parameter to find a client's invoices, providing explicit guidance for a common use case. However, it does not discuss when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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