siigo_get_purchases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns all purchases or requires pagination. The description is minimal and lacks context about what 'purchases' includes or how results are structured.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it's arguably too concise given the lack of annotations and sibling tools, leaving gaps in usage context that could be addressed with slightly more detail.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'purchase' entails in this system, how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with multiple siblings and potential complexity in financial data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'page_size') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying list retrieval. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get list of purchases from Siigo' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('purchases'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_purchase' (singular) or 'siigo_get_invoices'. It specifies 'list' which helps distinguish from single-item retrieval, but lacks detail on what constitutes a purchase in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'siigo_get_purchase' (singular) and 'siigo_get_invoices', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for bulk retrieval, filtered queries, or general listing. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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