aruba_summarize_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool 'fetches' and 'summarizes', implying a read operation returning a summary. While not contradictory, it does not provide significant new behavioral information beyond what annotations already convey.

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 concise: a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, scoring highly on 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?

Given the tool has required parameters and an output schema, the description should explain the parameters and any prerequisites. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer. The presence of many sibling tools also demands clearer context for selection. The description is incomplete for effective 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?

The input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'direction', 'filename', or 'confirm_read' mean or how to use them. For an agent to invoke the tool correctly, it needs to know that direction likely indicates invoice direction (sent/received) and filename is the invoice's filename. The lack of parameter clarification severely hinders correct usage.

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 states the tool fetches and summarizes one invoice into a compact structured form. It specifies the resource (one invoice) and the action (fetch and summarize), which distinguishes it from many sibling tools that list or search. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from tools like 'aruba_get_safe_invoice_summary' or 'aruba_get_invoice_full_context'.

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 the many alternative invoice-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent has no context to decide between this and similar tools.

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