get_invoice

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the fields returned (items, payment data, SPAYD string, PDF path), which is meaningful behavioral context for a retrieval tool, but it omits what happens when the number is not found, whether it is strictly read-only, and any permission or error behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a compact enumeration of returned content. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and summarizes the payload without needing to restate the return structure. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and locating the invoice number, but the core is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter ('number', documented as 'Číslo faktury'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning such as expected format, whether a variable symbol or prefix is accepted, or whether the number must come from list_invoices or peek_invoice_number. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and action ('Detail faktury z evidence') and enumerates the content returned: items, payment details, SPAYD QR string, and PDF path. It reads clearly as a single-invoice retrieval tool, distinguishable from sibling list_invoices or get_supplier, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'detail of an invoice' suggests fetching one invoice by its number rather than listing. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_invoices, nor any note that the invoice number must already be known, leaving the agent to infer the sibling routing.

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