List sales invoice ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content the annotations cannot: the date range is interpreted against creation date for New/Draft/Mistake but against sending date for all other statuses, and this is version-gated to SEF 3.15.0. It does not say anything about result ordering, volume, or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the operation, the second carries the non-obvious date-field rule. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the annotations, and the key qualifier is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the status-dependent date semantics that would otherwise cause silent wrong results. Minor omissions such as id format or result ordering are low-impact given there is no output schema to explain.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the meaning of dateFrom/dateTo depends on the status value, a coupling the schema does not express. It does not clarify format expectations or whether the range is inclusive, leaving a small 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists SEF sales invoice ids") and constrains it to status plus date range, so the agent knows this is an id-only lookup rather than a full invoice fetch such as sef_get_invoice. It never names a sibling tool to contrast against, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 status/date framing implies the use case (find invoice ids to feed into sef_get_invoice, sef_send_invoice, etc.), but the description never says that explicitly and gives no when-not guidance or alternative routing. The usage is inferable rather than stated.

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