einvoice_config_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'Shows which providers are enabled and their settings', implying a read-only operation, and enumerates the exact config fields per provider. However, it does not disclose whether credentials are returned masked/full, whether the response includes non-enabled providers, or any auth requirements. For a list read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 dense paragraph but efficiently packed with useful provider-specific field details. It could be restructured into separate sentences for providers, but every clause adds value (field names per provider are actionable). Slight room for improvement in scannability, but no wasted words.

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 tool has 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job of explaining what the returned configuration will contain across all five providers. It lacks details on response shape or masking of secrets, but for a list/read tool the content coverage is strong.

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% (companyId is fully described). The description adds that companyId uses a default when unspecified, which is behavior the schema does not convey. It also adds context about what the returned data contains. However, the description does not add syntax-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the default-company behavior is genuinely valuable.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('e-invoice provider configurations'), and scope ('for a company'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like einvoice_config_save/delete/test and einvoice_providers by focusing on listing existing configurations with provider-specific settings. The description also enumerates all supported providers (anaf, xrechnung, sdi, ksef, facturx), which adds meaningful specificity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the name einvoice_config_list versus einvoice_providers (likely listing available providers, not current configurations) creates an implicit distinction. It does say what is returned (enabled state, API credentials, routing codes), and lists provider-specific fields, but offers no explicit exclusions or alternative links.

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