get_ledger_invoices

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly concise and lacks necessary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity but still insufficient.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with two parameters (one optional) and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context about filtering scope, pagination, or usage constraints. It feels incomplete.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'specific ledger' relating to ledger_id but does not explain facility_id. Both parameters are left undocumented beyond their names.

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 attached to a specific ledger. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('invoices attached to a specific ledger'), but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like 'list_invoices_and_ledgers'.

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 alternatives such as 'list_invoices_and_ledgers' or 'get_ledger'. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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