invoices_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the contents of the read (which event classes appear in the timeline), which the annotations cannot convey. It does not discuss ordering, pagination, or result size limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core capability and its scope lead; the use cases follow. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope or intent.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the event types returned, which is the main thing an agent needs to judge relevance. Remaining gaps (chronological ordering, empty-timeline behavior) are minor for a read-only lookup.

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% with two well-documented params (uuid required, companyId as active-company override), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description mentions invoices but does not explain the companyId override behavior or what happens when the UUID is unknown.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('complete timeline of events for an invoice'), and it enumerates the event categories (status changes, ANAF submissions, validations, emails, payments, user actions). That enumeration is what separates it from invoices_get and from the various invoices_submit/validate/email action tools.

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?

Names three concrete purposes (audit trails, debugging, lifecycle history), giving an agent a clear picture of when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming alternatives such as invoices_get or efactura_messages_list, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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