m3_received_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Query' signals a read-only operation, and it discloses that results include VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables, and that filtering/pagination are supported. It omits error behavior and rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose first and then lists relevant capabilities in a tight clause; every word contributes to selection or invocation.

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 no output schema, the description provides useful return facets and pagination, but the `where` parameter expects GraphQL syntax and the description gives no example or reference to m3_graphql for guidance. 'Controlling variables' is also vague, leaving an agent with incomplete information when composing complex filters.

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%, and all parameters (skip, take, order, where) already have descriptive text. The description's 'filtering and pagination' simply echoes the schema and adds no new meaning about how to construct the GraphQL order/where clauses. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Query received (incoming) invoices' — a specific verb and resource, and '(incoming)' disambiguates from sibling m3_issued_invoices. It also names key data returned (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables), so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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 'received (incoming)' wording gives clear context for when to use this tool vs issued invoice tools, and 'filtering and pagination' hints at query scenarios. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like m3_issued_invoices or m3_graphql, nor says 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.