search_paid_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core function (searching paid invoices) but lacks details on read-only nature, pagination, default limits, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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, front-loading the primary action and usage context. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal, explaining only the basic purpose and two of four parameters. It does not mention what the return value looks like, the behavior of the 'query' parameter, or how the 'limit' applies, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'client' (filter by client) and 'amount' (min_amount), but completely omits the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. This partial coverage leaves two parameters unexplained, making the description insufficient for proper usage.

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 searches for paid invoices, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_invoices (which likely searches all invoices) by specifying 'already paid', making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when the user asks about paid invoices or completed payments,' providing a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the usage guidance is sufficiently clear.

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