get_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the next two outline args and returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating args/returns into a single paragraph).

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails or address potential behavioral aspects like error cases, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 adds minimal semantics by naming 'invoice_id' as the ID to retrieve, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of the ID (e.g., numeric, string pattern), so it slightly undercompensates, warranting a score of 3.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific invoice'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_invoices' or 'get_einvoice_xml', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_invoices' for multiple invoices or 'get_einvoice_xml' for XML data. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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