aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds an important behavioral note about sensitivity when file/PDF Base64 is requested, which is not covered by annotations and alerts the agent to potential data exposure.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the endpoint. However, it sacrifices essential parameter details, making it insufficiently informative for an agent. It meets conciseness but not completeness.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values (though output schema exists), or usage context. No differentiation from similar tools is provided.

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%, yet the description entirely omits parameter explanations. Parameters like includePdf, includeFile, and confirm_read are left undefined. The brief mention of 'file/PDF Base64' hints at includePdf/includeFile but offers no clarity, forcing the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 includes the HTTP GET method and endpoint path, clearly indicating retrieval of a sent invoice by ID. The verb 'GET' and path '/services/invoice/out/{invoiceId}' make the action explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve by filename or SDI 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many siblings (e.g., by filename, by SDI ID), no contextual hints are given. The agent must infer usage solely from the endpoint name.

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