aruba_get_invoice_full_context

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool is 'Sensitive when XML/PDF/notifications/PDD are requested', which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and key extras. No wasted words.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks guidance on required parameters (direction, filename) and fails to explain when to use this over sibling tools. For a complex tool with 7 parameters and many siblings, more context is needed.

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 0%, but the description only hints at parameter meanings through terms like 'XML/PDF/notifications/PDD'. It does not describe 'direction', 'filename', or 'confirm_read', leaving the agent to infer. The composite nature is noted but not mapped to parameters.

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 aggregates invoice payload, parsed XML, notifications, timeline, and optional PDD, indicating a composite 'get full context' function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_filename, which is similar but more granular.

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 composite tool versus individual get tools. The description mentions 'read-only endpoints' but doesn't specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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