get_job_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers: the return shape (totals_by_currency keyed by ISO code), the multi-currency handling behavior, and the draft-invoice treatment ('drafts contribute their face value as billed + outstanding with paid=0, so the report shows the full pipeline'). This is rich behavioral disclosure far beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 tightly structured with a summary line, a return-format paragraph, and a args section. Every sentence earns its place — zero filler words, clear line breaks for scannability, and important details front-loaded in the introductory sentence.

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?

Despite being a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description thoroughly covers return value structure (totals_by_currency dict), included invoice types, draft handling behavior, and multi-currency semantics. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% — no description field on the job_id parameter in the input schema. However, the description's Args section provides 'job_id: Job ID (e.g., "000001")' with a concrete format example, compensating for the schema gap despite being minimal. A clear example helps agents format correct values.

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?

Description clearly states 'Per-job summary: billed / paid / outstanding totals across all linked invoices, plus the per-invoice breakdown.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice (single invoice) and get_outstanding_invoices (filtered list).

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 explains what invoice types are included ('Both posted and unposted (draft) invoices') and how drafts are treated, providing clear context for when results include draft contributions. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling comparisons, but the purpose is specific enough that usage intent is clear.

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