search_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, side effects, or permissions. It only says 'Search invoices,' implying a read operation, but gives no information about return format, pagination via limit, or any potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and schema hints.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and filters, the second gives usage context. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could be more thorough. It covers the main filters and usage context but lacks details on return format, pagination, and edge cases. The mention of 'Search invoices' implies a return, but without an output schema, the description should hint at the result type. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to use it without confusion.

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?

The schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description should compensate. It mentions 'free text' (query), 'client', 'status', and 'amount' (likely min_amount), but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely. The mapping is partial; the description does not explain the exact meaning of min_amount or how the status filter works (e.g., multiple statuses selelectable). It adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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's action: 'Search invoices by free text and filter by client, status, or amount.' It identifies the resource (invoices) and the filtering capabilities, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_invoice (fetching specific) and list_overdue_invoices (specialized status). The verb 'search' plus the resource is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use when the user asks about invoices, billing, or payments.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like list_overdue_invoices or search_paid_invoices, which are more specialized. Thus it lacks explicit exclutions and alternative guidance.

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