myob_invoice_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral nuance that supplying a layout switches to a layout-specific endpoint, which is valuable. However, it omits other traits like authentication requirements, error behavior, or how the response varies between layouts.

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?

Two short sentences, the first states the core action and the second adds a conditional nuance. No filler or repetition; structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple get tool, the description covers the primary action and one conditional behavior, but with no output schema and no parameter details for business_id, the context is incomplete. The meaning of 'layout' and the response shape remain ambiguous, lowering completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds meaning for 'layout' (switches to a detail endpoint) and leaves 'uid' and 'business_id' unexplained. UID is self-explanatory, but business_id is not mentioned at all, leaving a significant gap.

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 opens with 'Get invoice by UID', which states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like myob_invoice_list or myob_bill_get. The second sentence adds a conditional detail about layout-specific endpoints, further refining its purpose.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single invoice by UID but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as myob_invoice_list or explain when to prefer this over other getters. The layout condition provides a usage hint but no exclusions or decision criteria.

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