list_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions lifecycle states. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, read-only nature, or any side effects. The description fails to convey that this is a safe read operation.

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 with a clear purpose line and structured args list. Every sentence contributes value. However, the omission of limit/offset could be considered a completeness issue rather than conciseness; the description itself is not verbose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination (limit/offset), return format, or default behavior. For a list tool, these are essential details.

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. It adds value by explaining status, contact_id, from_date, and to_date with examples and format hints. However, it omits limit and offset parameters entirely, which are critical for pagination. Coverage is partial.

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 lists sales invoices and provides a lifecycle summary. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_invoice (single invoice) or create_invoice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_purchases or other list tools, and could be more specific about scope (e.g., 'all invoices').

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 parameter examples but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_purchases or get_invoice. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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