List invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the default return format ('compact summaries') and how to obtain raw records ('full=true'), which goes beyond the annotation information. This helps the agent understand expected output.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds essential detail about filters and return formats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the filters and the difference between compact and full records. However, it does not mention pagination (limit/offset) or default page size, which are covered in the schema but not in the description. Given the moderate complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by mapping user-facing filter names (client, status, brand) to the relevant parameters and providing status examples ('unpaid', 'paid', 'overdue') and clarifying the full flag's effect. It also helps interpret status values that accept short forms as noted in the 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's function: 'List invoices' with filters for client, status, and brand. This identifies the resource (invoices) and the specific verb (list), and the mention of filters adds scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_invoice (individual retrieval) and list_contracts (different resource), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 listing or filtering invoices, and the context of the tool name makes this evident. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternative tools, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'for a single invoice, use get_invoice'). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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