xero_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of pagination, default result size, ordering, or what happens when filters are omitted—so the description contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing needs trimming; something needs adding.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete: it never explains filter semantics, pagination, result volume, or the tenant/auth requirement implied by tenant_id and access_token. An agent can guess, but cannot call it confidently without opening the schema and still guessing at behavior.

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 only 17%: only 'status' has a description, while date_from, date_to, tenant_id, contact_id and access_token are undocumented. The description says nothing about how these filters combine, whether they are optional, or what the default listing behavior is, leaving five parameters unexplained in both places.

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 clear verb and resource (get invoices) scoped to Xero, so an agent knows it retrieves invoice data from the Xero integration. It does not distinguish itself from relatives like xero_payments or xero_quotes, and it doesn't clarify whether this is a list-all or a single-invoice fetch, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other invoice-related siblings (stripe_invoices, quickbooks_invoices, paypal_invoices, xero_payments), nor on prerequisites such as tenant/auth context. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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