get_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool fetches one invoice, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose details like whether it returns full details, error behavior for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. It's minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter, and includes a usage hint. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose, parameter, and usage context. It could mention what happens if the invoice is not found, but that's a minor gap.

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%, but the description explains the invoice_id parameter with an example format (INV-0001), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify the expected format beyond the example, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 states the tool fetches one invoice by invoice_id, with an example format (INV-0001). It distinguishes from siblings like search_invoices and list_overdue_invoices by specifying it's for a single known invoice.

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 explicitly says to use when the user already has the invoice number, which provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names imply other tools for searching or listing, so the guidance is adequate.

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