lexware_get_down_payment_invoiceFetch a down payment invoice by its UUID from Lexware. Retrieve exact invoice details for verification or processing.
Retrieve a down payment invoice by ID from Lexware.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Down payment invoice UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, restrictions, or output details). It merely restates the purpose, so it contributes minimal value beyond annotations.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for the simple operation.
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 one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description functionally communicates what the tool does. However, it lacks any details about the return value (e.g., what fields are in a down payment invoice), which would be helpful for an agent. Still adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 clear parameter description ('Down payment invoice UUID'). The tool description mentions 'by ID' but does not add any new meaning or usage hints beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (retrieve) and resource (down payment invoice by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_invoice or get_credit_note by specifying the resource type. However, it does not add detail beyond the tool name, which slightly limits its value.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get tools or download/deeplink tools for down payment invoices). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.