feegow_list_invoices

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

No annotations provided. The description only states it is a GET request to list invoices, but does not disclose safety (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 very short and includes a prefix and endpoint. It is efficient but lacks structure and important details beyond the bare minimum.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented query parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, filtering options, or pagination, which are critical for a list endpoint.

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?

The schema has one parameter (query object) with 100% coverage but the description adds no information about valid keys or values. It merely restates what the schema already shows.

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 it lists financial accounts/invoices and includes the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like feegow_find_invoice_by_nfse or feegow_create_invoice.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many financial sibling tools, but the description provides no context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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