List invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'paginated', which hints at paging, but does not disclose any other behaviors such as filtering, ordering, default page size, limits, or whether it returns only non-deleted invoices. For a tool with five optional parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 gets to the point. It is appropriately sized for the minimal info it conveys, but it is not over-bloated. However, it earns no credit for adding extra structure or front-loading important disclaimers; it's just a bare statement.

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 complexity—five optional parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions—the description is woefully incomplete. It omits any mention of the parameters, return format, pagination mechanics, or any filtering capabilities. Compared to sibling list tools, it lacks the context needed to choose and use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. The schema lists parameters like 'type', 'search', 'status', 'pageSize', and 'pageNumber', but the description doesn't explain what these do or how to use them. An agent would have no way to correctly fill in these parameters based on the description alone.

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 'List' and the resource 'invoices', which distinguishes it from other invoice-related tools like get_invoice or update_invoice. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_campaigns), though the resource name alone is sufficient to identify its purpose. It also mentions pagination, which is a specific behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_invoice or list_campaigns. It doesn't state that this is for retrieving multiple invoices, nor does it mention any preconditions, such as needing an organization context. The description implies a listing operation but gives no contextual cues.

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