spraay_invoice_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that data persists in Supabase and costs $0.002 USDC, which are useful behavioral traits not captured by annotations. This enhances transparency without 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?

The description is two sentences, each serving a clear purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes essential details like cost and persistence without redundancy or filler.

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 the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, behavioral traits (cost, persistence), and is complete for a listing tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'address' parameter can be a creator or payer address, which is not explicit in the schema. It also reinforces the optional status filter, adding value beyond schema.

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 tool lists invoices by creator or payer address with an optional status filter, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like spraay_invoice_create and spraay_invoice_get by specifying the list operation and filtering criteria.

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 description implies usage when you need to find invoices by address and optionally by status. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool among the invoice-related siblings, like spraay_invoice_get for a single invoice.

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