aruba_get_received_invoice_unsigned_file

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by noting the content is 'Sensitive' and the file is 'Base64 read', providing additional behavioral context 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 extremely short (two fragments), missing critical details about parameters and usage. While concise, it is underspecified for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 4-parameter complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'unsigned file' means, what the output contains (though output schema exists), or how the 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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (invoiceId, filename, includeFile, confirm_read). The agent must guess their meaning from names and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving an unsigned invoice file via GET, and notes that the file is Base64-encoded. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve invoice metadata or signed files by specifying 'unsignedFile'.

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 compared to alternatives like aruba_get_received_invoice_by_id or aruba_parse_invoice_xml. The description does not mention 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.