Search received invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the API silently ignores issue-date filters on this endpoint, and the UOL API exposes no payment status for purchase invoices, which warns the agent away from an unavailable filter or expected field.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identification followed by the two constraints that matter before calling. The Czech gloss and the filter caveat each earn their place; nothing is redundant, though the phrasing is slightly terse for a 16-parameter tool.

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 16-parameter, all-optional search tool with an output schema present, the description covers what structured fields cannot: the identity of the resource, which date filters actually work, and a data limitation (no payment status). Pagination, formats and limits are already documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, but several date fields (tax_date_from/to, received_date_from/to, due_date_from/to) exist with identical YYYY-MM-DD descriptions and no differentiation. The description resolves that ambiguity by naming tax_date_* as DUZP and marking it and received_date_* as the working date filters, which is real added meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search received (purchase) invoices') plus the Czech equivalent 'přijaté faktury', which unambiguously separates it from sibling search_sales_invoices and get_purchase_invoice. An agent can tell it is a filtered list operation on the received-invoice resource without opening the 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?

It gives one concrete usage rule — because UOL ignores issue-date filters on this endpoint, filter by tax_date_* (DUZP) or received_date_* instead — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to pick this over get_purchase_invoice (single-record lookup) or search_sales_invoices (direction), and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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