List Purchase Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't: results are paginated, filters are applied server-side, and the default response is a reduced 'brief' view. It stops short of disclosing page size or total-count behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then filtering behavior, then the view/detail routing. No filler or restated name/title.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description covers the essentials: pagination, server-side filters, and the brief-vs-full response distinction. Missing only minor operational detail such as default page size or whether a total count is returned.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including enums and the payment_status null caveat. The description only enumerates the filter families (date range, status, payment status, supplier) without adding syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (purchase invoices) and immediately distinguishes itself from the detail sibling get_purchase_invoice and from the view='full' option. An agent can pick this over get_purchase_invoice without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: brief view by default, use view='full' or get_purchase_invoice for detail. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, though it gives no when-not conditions (e.g. bulk export, large result handling).

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