aruba_find_sent_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating 'read-only' and mentioning the HTTP GET method. It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or response characteristics.

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 at one sentence, but it omits important structural elements. While brevity is valued, the lack of parameter details and usage notes makes it inadequate for a tool with many parameters.

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 high parameter count (11) and zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct searches or what each filter does. Even with an output schema, the input side is poorly documented.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions exist for any of the 11 parameters. The description fails to explain the purpose or format of parameters like 'username', 'page', 'size', and various date and code fields. This leaves the agent without necessary guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only search for sent invoices. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like 'aruba_find_received_invoices'. However, it could be more specific about what a sent invoice constitutes.

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 does not provide any usage context or guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'aruba_search_invoices' or 'aruba_find_received_invoices'. It only states it is a 'read-only sent invoice search', leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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