Merit Read Purchases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only tool' adds no new safety context. It lists actions but lacks details on pagination, error behavior, or output structure, though not required given annotations.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with 'Read-only tool,' then lists actions. No wasted words, though a list format could improve readability.

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?

Description is incomplete given 9 parameters and no output schema. Only action parameter is explained; key details on filters, payload, and response are missing, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but only explains the 'action' parameter values. Other 8 parameters (id, filters, payload, etc.) receive no explanation, leaving ambiguity.

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 reads purchase invoices and purchase orders, listing specific actions (invoices_list, invoice_get, orders_list), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like merit_read_sales.

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 implies usage for purchase documents through naming and actions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like merit_read_financial.

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