aruba_get_received_invoice_by_filename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds a sensitivity warning about file/PDF Base64, which is useful. However, it does not explain other behaviors like the effect of confirm_read or what happens when includePdf is true.

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 extremely concise (one line), but it sacrifices key information. It is not structured as a proper tool description and lacks a clear subject-verb-object format.

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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is grossly insufficient. It fails to convey what the tool returns, when to use it, and how parameters interact.

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%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of 'includePdf', 'includeFile', 'confirm_read' remains unclear from the description alone. This adds no value beyond the schema titles.

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 mentions the REST path and the action of retrieving by filename, but it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves received invoice metadata and optionally file content). It is better than tautology but still vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id or aruba_get_received_invoice_zip_by_filename. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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