aruba_get_received_invoice_pdd

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it notes the data is 'Sensitive' and in 'Base64 ZIP' format, but it does not disclose what happens if both parameters are omitted, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral nuances beyond annotations.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the HTTP method and endpoint. The second adds context about content and a note about a documentation typo. The typo note is marginally helpful but slightly off-topic for an agent. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and operates in a context with many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, usage examples, clarification of what a PDD is, and guidance on when to use it. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, and the description does not help the agent understand the full scope of the operation.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the description provides no information about them. It does not explain the meaning of 'invoiceFilename', 'invoiceId', or 'confirm_read', nor does it clarify how they relate to the operation. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it as a GET request to read a 'Sensitive Base64 ZIP PDD' for a received invoice, clearly distinguishing it from its sent counterpart (sibling tool 'aruba_get_sent_invoice_pdd'). However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves a received invoice's PDD attachment, and the purpose is somewhat implied by the endpoint path.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'aruba_find_invoices_without_pdd' or 'aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid it.

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