wafeq_invoices_retrieve

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description is fully consistent with these, adding only the HTTP method and endpoint path (GET /invoices/{id}/) while largely repeating the READ-ONLY flag. It adds no context about response contents, 404 behavior, or permissions, but for a trivial read with strong annotation coverage the bar is lower. No contradiction.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY badge, resource, and endpoint. However, 'Retrieve invoice' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single invoice' are redundant restatements of the same fact, so one of the two sentences is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation (pass the invoice id). Gaps remain: no mention of what the response contains (and there is no output schema), error behavior, or how standard invoices relate to simplified invoices in this large toolset. These are modest for a trivial retrieve but still leave the agent without a full picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: the endpoint 'GET /invoices/{id}/' clarifies that id is the invoice identifier used as a path parameter. For a single self-evident parameter this is sufficient, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the tool name and endpoint already imply.

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?

States the specific operation ('Retrieve invoice', 'retrieving a single invoice') with the resource and endpoint. The word 'single' distinguishes it from wafeq_invoices_list, and the resource naming separates it from retrieve tools for other resources (bills, quotes, credit notes, expenses). However, it does not clarify the distinction from wafeq_simplified_invoices_retrieve, and it largely restates the tool name and annotation title.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With a huge sibling set including wafeq_invoices_list (when you need multiple/filtered invoices), wafeq_invoices_download_retrieve (when you need the PDF), and wafeq_simplified_invoices_retrieve (simplified vs standard invoices), the description offers no routing conditions or exclusions. The only usage signal is the name itself.

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