Get Invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as error handling or return format. It does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich them.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 is simple with one parameter and good annotations, but no output schema or mention of what 'details' entails. The description is adequate for basic understanding but could specify the response structure or error behavior.

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 only parameter is invoiceId, and the description reinforces that it identifies a specific invoice. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal compensation, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 'Get details of a specific invoice' clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (invoice), and scope (specific). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_list_invoices, which retrieve multiple invoices, and from creation/management tools.

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?

Usage is implied: one would use this when needing details of a single invoice. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ghl_list_invoices or how to obtain the invoiceId. The context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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