Get invoice aggregation report

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether resellerContext changes the aggregation scope, or what the response looks like. Only the verb 'Get' implicitly signals a 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?

It is a single short fragment, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool produces.

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 three-parameter reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essentially everything an agent needs: report contents, period defaults, the effect of resellerContext, and the return shape.

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 coverage is 33%: only resellerContext is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'year/month' but does not explain that both are optional (required list is empty), whether omitting them returns current-period data, or how resellerContext alters results.

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 restates the tool name in camel case plus a time scope ('for year/month'), which is close to tautology. It never says what an 'aggregation report' contains (totals? per-service? per-reseller?), so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like get_reports, execute_report, or get_latest_invoices_for_period.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative tool despite several report and invoice siblings existing. The only hint is the year/month scope, which is inferred rather than stated as a selection criterion.

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