list_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns a list of dicts with specific keys, but does not mention pagination, errors, or auth requirements. For a read-only list operation this is adequate but not rich

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second lists return keys. Every sentence provides value, with no fluff or repetition

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: action, scope, and return shape are present. Having an output schema already covers detailed return types, so the only minor gap is operational context like pagination or empty-result behavior, which is less critical for a simple list

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema and descrition have nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 param is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all invoices from the CUF portal', making the action and scope explicit. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_invoice (singular) and list_clinical_documents (different resource).

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 implies use when all invoices are needed, but does not explicitly say when to avoid it or prefer a sibling such as get_invoice for a single invoice. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implied

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