aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral trait 'Sensitive when file/PDF Base64 is requested,' which alerts to potential data sensitivity beyond the 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?

The description is very short and front-loads the HTTP method and path, which is unnecessary for MCP. The sensitivity note is valuable but lacks structure. It is concise but could better organize information about parameters and usage.

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 4 parameters, many siblings, and a provided output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, parameter functions, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The minimal text leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the includePdf and includeFile parameters via the sensitivity note but does not explain them or the confirm_read parameter. Most parameters remain undefined in meaning.

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 the HTTP method and path, indicating it retrieves a received invoice by ID. The mention of sensitivity when file/PDF Base64 is requested adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_filename and aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_id by focusing on invoice 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings for retrieving invoices by different identifiers (e.g., filename, SDI ID), the description fails to provide context for appropriate selection.

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