List Invoices

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

Annotations already mark this tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds context about location-based retrieval and filtering, but does not disclose pagination, return format, or the fact that 'date range' filtering is unsupported by the schema. The false date range claim is a behavioral misrepresentation that the annotations do not cover, preventing a higher score.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get invoices for a location') and then lists filters. Every word earns its place, though the unwarranted 'date range' mention is a small waste and should be removed or corrected to match the actual schema.

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 description gives the core purpose and some filter options, but with no output schema and 4 parameters, it is incomplete. It does not explain what fields are returned, how pagination works via 'limit', or that 'locationId' is essential (implied but not stated). Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, a score of 3 reflects the absence of these practical details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It explains 'status' and 'contact' (likely mapping to the 'status' and 'contactId' properties), but omits 'limit' entirely and incorrectly introduces a 'date range' filter that has no corresponding schema property. This partial coverage plus a misleading addition leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 retrieves invoices for a location and supports filtering by status, contact, or date range. It distinguishes itself from the singular 'ghl_get_invoice' sibling because it is a plural list operation, though it does not explicitly reference that alternative. However, the mention of 'date range' filtering is misleading because the schema contains no date parameters, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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 this tool is used to list invoices for a location, with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'ghl_get_invoice' for a single invoice, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is reasonably clear but lacks guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.

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