get_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does indicate this is a read operation ('Get') and that the response includes full line item detail, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens when the invoice is not found, so it is only minimally transparent.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the key action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 description is too sparse for the tool's context. With no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of how this relates to sibling tools like query_invoices, the agent is left without guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not provide enough operational context (e.g., response shape, error behavior, or why to choose this over query_invoices) to be considered 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (type, select, referenceNbr) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the default response includes line items. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'a single Acumatica sales invoice' and adds the detail 'with full line item detail,' which distinguishes it from listing tools like query_invoices and other getters like get_shipment. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 such as query_invoices (for querying multiple invoices) or get_shipment. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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