autotask_search_invoices

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

The description does not mention behavioral traits beyond the schema and annotations. Since no annotations are provided, the description should compensate but fails to clarify if the search is read-only, case-sensitive, or returns paginated results. It only mentions 'optional filters'.

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 is front-loaded with the purpose. It could be improved by adding brief usage context, but it is not verbose.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is adequate but does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or default filters. For a simple search tool, it meets minimum viability.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches invoices with optional filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like autotask_search_billing_items or autotask_search_contacts, which also search for entities. It is specific to 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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as autotask_get_invoice_details for a single invoice or other search tools. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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