aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_filename

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by noting that the tool is 'sensitive when file/PDF Base64 is requested,' warning about data sensitivity beyond what annotations capture. This is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 short (one sentence) but lacks critical information such as purpose statement and parameter explanations. It is concise but incomplete, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are not needed. However, the description does not cover basic behavior like what happens with different parameter combinations (e.g., includeFile=false), error conditions, or the purpose of confirm_read. Given the complexity of 4 parameters, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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. The only parameter-related note is about file/PDF sensitivity, which hints at includePdf/includeFile behavior but does not explain any parameter meaning. 'confirm_read' remains ambiguous, and no value constraints or usage patterns are described.

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 name and description together indicate the tool retrieves a sent invoice by filename. The description includes the HTTP verb and resource path, giving specific action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_id or aruba_get_received_invoice_by_filename, missing a differentiation statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as by-ID or by-SDI-ID tools. No context about prerequisites, when to select this tool, or when not to use it is provided.

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