borderou_transaction_available_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It indicates this returns 'available' invoices (filtered/eligible candidates), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what 'available' means (unmatched? unpaid?), pagination, or what the result set looks like for a tool with no output schema.

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, information-dense sentence with zero redundancy. Every element earns its place: the purpose, the matching context, and the search criteria.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what results look like or what 'available' eligibility means. The params are fully documented, but the semantics of 'available' and the response shape are unaddressed. Adequate but with meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether this finds the right candidate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 4 parameters well (id, type with enum, search, companyId). The description reinforces 'search by number, client name, or amount' which maps directly to the schema's search parameter hint. The description adds the default type behavior ('both') which isn't in the schema itself. This exceeds the baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get invoices or proforma invoices available to match against a borderou transaction.' It also specifies search dimensions (number, client name, amount). This is a narrow, well-defined lookup tool distinct from sibling list/get operations elsewhere.

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 this is for matching documents to a borderou transaction, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like invoices_list or proforma_invoices_list for broader listing needs. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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