find_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'list' implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination behavior, whether it returns all invoices or just a page, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details. Could be expanded to include more info without being overly verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what fields are returned or pagination. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse for an agent to use effectively.

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 mentions 'contact' and 'date range' filters, which map to contact_id, start_date, end_date. However, it does not explain page, limit, or the format of date strings. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 it lists invoices with optional filtering by contact and date range. The verb 'list' and resource 'invoices' are explicit. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling find_* tools, the context of invoices vs. animals/appointments/etc. makes it clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description is too minimal to help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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