einvoice_config_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is moderate: it discloses that the response includes sensitive material (API credentials, clientSecret, certPassword, authToken), which is genuinely useful context an agent won't get from annotations. With substantial annotation coverage, this lands at a 3.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact enumeration of per-provider fields. The third sentence is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema and the agent otherwise cannot interpret provider-specific keys; nothing is redundant.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does the needed extra work by describing what a returned config contains and which fields belong to each of the five providers. It stops short of saying what happens when no config exists for a provider or whether secrets are masked, which is the only meaningful gap.

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% and the single companyId parameter already documents the default-company fallback, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes "for a company" and adds no format or selection detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List all e-invoice provider configurations for a company") and immediately qualifies the scope (providers enabled, their settings). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like einvoice_config_save or einvoice_providers, so the distinction from those is left implicit, but "List all" is unambiguous against the write/delete siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the read path, with einvoice_config_save/delete/test as the obvious write counterparts, but the description never states when to choose this over einvoice_providers or when a config would not exist. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., auth to ANAF for the anaf provider) are given.

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