m3_issued_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Query' clearly conveys a non-destructive read operation, and naming the returned content (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables) adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. But it omits response shape, pagination defaults/limits, and failure or edge-case behavior, so the transparency is adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that places the core verb+resource first and appends a compact, informative capability list. There is no filler or redundancy. The only minor blemish is the somewhat jargon-y 'controlling variables,' but overall every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity query tool with four optional, fully-documented parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the main capabilities and partial return contents. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about result shape and pagination limits would strengthen the agent's confidence, but nothing critical is missing for a simple filtered query.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already fully documented by the input schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' loosely maps to where/order and skip/take but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema's own parameter descriptions already state.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Query') tied to a precise resource ('issued (outgoing) invoices'), and the parenthetical '(outgoing)' actively disambiguates direction from the sibling m3_received_invoices. The appended scope list (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables, filtering, pagination) further pins down what the tool returns, clearly separating it from create/delete siblings like m3_create_issued_invoice and m3_delete_invoice.

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 signals a read-only retrieval context, which implies when an agent would call it. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions — there is no explicit statement like 'use m3_received_invoices for incoming invoices' or 'use m3_create_issued_invoice to create one.' The usage context is inferable but left to the agent to derive.

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