aruba_get_sent_invoice_pdd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the response is a sensitive Base64 ZIP PDD read, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the format and sensitivity, but does not elaborate on potential side effects or authentication requirements.

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 (two sentences), front-loading the HTTP method and resource. While it is efficient, it sacrifices informational depth. It earns its place but could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

With 3 parameters undocumented and no explanation of return structure (though an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify which identifier to use, the role of confirm_read, or what PDD entails. Given the tool's positioning among many invoice-related siblings, more detail is needed for safe selection and use.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (invoiceFilename, invoiceId, confirm_read), so it adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema. This is a critical gap for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies the HTTP method (GET) and resource path (invoice/out/pdd) and mentions it's a read operation for sensitive Base64 ZIP PDD. This clearly indicates it retrieves a PDD file for a sent invoice, distinguishing it from siblings like aruba_get_received_invoice_pdd. However, it lacks plain-language explanation of what PDD stands for.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_filename or aruba_get_sent_invoice_by_id). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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