wafeq_simplified_invoices_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with a READ-ONLY marker. It adds the endpoint method/path but provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Retrieve simplified invoice' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single simplified invoice' essentially restate the same thing. The same content could be conveyed in one sentence without losing clarity.

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-parameter, read-only retrieve operation with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It provides the endpoint, the resource type, and the fact that it returns a single invoice. The lack of an output schema is acceptable given the tool name and purpose, though it could mention where to find the ID.

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 schema has one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so minimally by showing '{id}' in the endpoint path, indicating the parameter is a path parameter. However, it does not explain the format, source, or expected values of the ID.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('simplified invoice'), and the exact endpoint (GET /simplified-invoices/{id}/). It distinguishes this tool from sibling list, create, update, and destroy operations for the same resource.

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 by the verb 'retrieve' and the endpoint, making it obvious the tool fetches a single simplified invoice by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like simplified_invoices_list or regular invoices_retrieve, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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