freeagent_get_invoice

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

The description implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but no annotations are provided to confirm non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval, the stated behavior is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the input (ID) and the output (a single invoice). The sibling tools context shows it is part of a consistent pattern, so agents can infer behavior.

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 description adds the phrase 'by ID' but does not elaborate on the invoice_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format via pattern). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description contributes minimal additional meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states 'Get a single invoice from FreeAgent by ID', which specifies the verb (Get) and resource (a single invoice). It distinguishes from sibling tools like freeagent_list_invoices (which returns multiple) and other get tools for different entities, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as freeagent_list_invoices for batch retrieval or other get tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema alone.

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