aruba_find_received_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds minimal value. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, but does not describe pagination, filtering behavior, or return format beyond the 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 very concise with only two sentences, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the endpoint and read-only nature, but could be more structured.

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 11 parameters, no output schema visible, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the search's scope, results, or how it differs from similar tools.

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 0%, yet the description provides no parameter details. The endpoint name hints at username, but the 11 parameters (including page, size, date range, sender/receiver codes) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent uninformed.

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?

Description states it is a read-only search for received invoices, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sent invoice searches via the name, but does not specify the search criteria (username) explicitly in the description.

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 like aruba_find_sent_invoices or aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id. The description lacks context on use cases or exclusions.

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