get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes all attributes and totals, which is useful because there is no output schema. It does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence. It starts with the core action ('Get a single Quipu invoice by id') and then appends the return detail ('with all of its attributes and totals'). There is no filler or redundant text.

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?

For a single-get tool with one parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It names the resource, identifies the lookup key, and summarizes the return payload. It could optionally mention not-found behavior, but that is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%—the parameter 'id' is described as 'Invoice id', which fully documents the parameter. The tool description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, source, or constraint information beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a single Quipu invoice by id') plus what is returned ('all of its attributes and totals'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_invoices and get_invoice_download_url by emphasizing 'single' and 'by id'.

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 usage context is implied: you call this when you have an invoice id and need the full invoice object. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, such as 'use list_invoices to find ids' or 'use get_invoice_download_url for the PDF'. The guidance is left to inference.

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