Get invoice holds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns prioritised recommended actions, explains each hold, and flags whether payment or accounting is blocked. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no holds exist, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste: the first defines content and return payload, the second defines the trigger condition. Front-loaded with the verb+resource, and every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description still usefully characterises what is returned (hold meanings, owning team, release path, prioritised actions, blocked flags). For a 7-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (e.g. no holds found, mixed released/active) is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail, including disambiguation guidance for invoiceNumber/supplierName/businessUnit and the semantics of includeReleased. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (holds on an Oracle Fusion Payables invoice), then enumerates the explanatory content returned (hold code meaning, owning team, revalidation, clearing steps). This is decisively distinct from siblings like get_invoice, which the description explicitly references as the prerequisite step.

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?

Provides a clear triggering condition: 'Use after get_invoice when an invoice is not paying or not accounting.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It doesn't name explicit exclusions or mention the other siblings (get_accounting_period_status, get_budgetary_control_impacts) that might also be relevant for a non-paying invoice, leaving a small routing gap.

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