hostodo_get_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is a stub, records demand, and returns a structured response without performing the action. It warns not to send secrets. This is adequate for a stub, though the response structure is not detailed.

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 two sentences, clearly stating its purpose and a security warning. No wasted words.

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 stub nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the stub, records demand, warns about secrets. It could specify the coming_soon response format, but overall it's complete for its limited functionality.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3. The description could have clarified that parameters are not actually processed, but it's not required.

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 is a stub that records demand and returns a coming_soon response, not actually getting invoice details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hostodo_get_invoice (if it existed) and hostodo_list_invoices by explicitly stating it does not perform the action.

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?

It provides clear context: 'coming soon' and 'does not perform the requested action yet.' It warns 'Do not send secrets,' which is appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the stub nature is evident, so the guidance is sufficient.

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