get_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. While it states it returns a JSON string, it lacks details about rate limits, data freshness, or potential authorization 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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear list of parameters with defaults. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it could mention that it returns a list of invoices or that pagination is handled via offset. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple list tool.

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 description explicitly documents each parameter (limit, offset, status) with defaults and purpose, adding significant meaning beyond the schema titles. Schema coverage is effectively 100% via the description, enabling proper agent 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 'Get invoice records for financial reporting,' specifying both the verb 'Get' and the resource 'invoice records.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice_count and get_invoice_info, which serve different purposes (count vs. single info).

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 a use case context ('for financial reporting') but does not explicitly specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_payments or get_invoice_count. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving selection to inference.

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