elba_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states cancelled invoices are excluded, that divergent invoices are re-read from Elba, that amounts may come back null, and that the errors field lists invoices that failed to re-read. It leaves out any permission/auth or performance notes, which is the only real gap for a read-only report.

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?

Front-loads the summary definition, then filters, then behavioral caveats in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on across sentences, but each sentence carries new information.

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 4-parameter report with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, exclusion rules, and even the shape of the response (byProject list, project null for unassigned, null amounts, errors). Only the semantics of project/contractor_id remain underspecified.

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 0%, and the description compensates by listing all four filters and giving date_from/date_to both a format (YYYY-MM-DD) and an anchor (invoice date). project and contractor_id are named but not explained (name vs. id is left ambiguous), so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

Names a concrete artifact and its content: a summary over the invoice journal with counts of issued/paid/unpaid/closed-by-act-or-UPD, totals and per-project, plus the invoice list itself. It even adds that the list doubles as a lookup by invoice number, which tells an agent exactly what resource it gets back.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter list and the note that the invoice list can locate an invoice by number, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as elba_unpaid or elba_get_bill. An agent can infer the reporting role, but must guess how it overlaps with sibling tools.

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