list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'List/search' implies a read operation, but provides no details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The page parameter suggests pagination, but this is not explained in the description.

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. It is clear and avoids unnecessary words. Minor improvement could be made by adding structure or bullet points for readability, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, filtering syntax (e.g., raw Xero filter), and expected return values. The tool has moderate complexity, yet the description provides only a high-level overview.

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 57%, and the description adds some context by summarizing filterable fields (status, contact, invoice number, raw filter). However, it does not elaborate on order, page, or org parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description partially compensates for coverage gaps but could be more complete.

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 action ('List/search') and resource ('invoices') within an org, and mentions filtering options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_overdue_invoices' or 'list_recurring_invoices', which would help the agent choose correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description omits any mention of the sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific invoice subsets (overdue, recurring).

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