Get RMappi Invoices

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

The description discloses the full automation flow: login to app.osuria.com, session token retrieval, API call, logout, and browser closure. It also clarifies that the access token is never returned. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint 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?

The description is structured logically: first a usage summary, then step-by-step details. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise but is efficient for a tool with automation steps.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers authentication, defaults, and the overall process. The only minor gap is error handling (e.g., login failure), but the description remains adequately complete for its intended 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?

Both parameters are fully covered in the schema. The description adds useful context about default behavior (current local year/month) and how to interpret when omitted. This clarifies ambiguity beyond the schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool is for retrieving RMappi/Osuria invoices, including related terms like 'laskut', 'voucher numbers', and 'invoice totals'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the tool and its resource, and the sibling tools have different purposes.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool when the user asks for RMappi/Osuria invoices...' and gives specific queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently directive given the sibling tools.

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