aruba_get_received_invoice_by_sdi_id

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it is sensitive when file/PDF Base64 is requested, which is useful beyond annotations, but doesn't elaborate on implications.

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 (one sentence) and front-loads the endpoint. It is concise but could be structured better with a clear statement of purpose.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return structure or parameter behaviors, though the output schema exists to cover returns.

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 description adds no parameter details beyond noting sensitivity of file/PDF. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but confirm_read and includeFile behavior remain unexplained.

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 identifies the HTTP endpoint and implies retrieval of an invoice by SDI ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_filename and aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_sdi_id, but does not explicitly state the verb 'retrieves'.

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 vs alternatives like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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