odoo_find_pending_invoices

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly specifies the Odoo 18 domain logic and notes that omitting partner_id returns all pending invoices. However, it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or the exact structure of the result. This leaves moderate gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, consisting of three well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical domain details, and the third gives a warning. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of invoice records, fields included). This is a significant gap given the tool's primary use is to retrieve data. Other behavioral aspects like sorting or limit handling are also not addressed.

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 already has descriptions for all parameters (limit, move_type, sender_id, partner_id), providing 100% coverage. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the domain logic and noting that partner_id can be omitted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it finds invoices/bills pending payment for a partner, with specific Odoo 18 domains. It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools like odoo_get_invoice_summary, which might also retrieve invoices but without the pending filter.

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 clear usage context: when to use (find pending invoices), how to filter by partner_id, and a negative guideline (do not use state='open'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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