query_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List and filter' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior (top/skip), default limits, or that the result is a collection. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then followed by usage examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the straightforward nature of a list/filter tool with a well-covered schema, the description covers the main use cases and indicates the return is a list. It omits details like pagination defaults, but the schema already documents top/skip, and 'list' implies an array. It is reasonably complete for an AI agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions; the tool name and context align with the parameters, but no extra guidance is provided.

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 ('List and filter') and the resource ('Acumatica sales invoices (AR)'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_invoice (singular fetch) and query_sales_orders (different document type) by specifying the AR invoicing domain.

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 explicit use cases ('revenue analytics, finding open or overdue invoices, summarizing invoice activity by customer'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it, such as a single-invoice lookup via get_invoice, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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