list_supplier_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable warning about never fabricating data if the tool fails and instructs reporting errors, which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or confirm that the operation is read-only.

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 with no wasted words: the first front-loads the action and resource, and the second adds a critical integrity warning. Both sentences earn their 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?

The schema covers all parameters and defaults, and the warning covers error-handling behavior, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves response format and safety profile unstated. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a list tool with eight parameters.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds only a high-level mention of filters by date, point of sale, voided, and deleted status, which is helpful but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('supplier invoices'), further clarified in Spanish. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invoices and get_supplier_invoice by resource type and operation granularity.

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 the tool is for supplier invoice listing with filters, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over list_invoices or when to use get_supplier_invoice for a single record. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name and resource.

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