invoices_export_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavioral facts: returns CSV text, includes UTF-8 BOM for Excel compatibility, and enforces a 10,000-invoice maximum. The limit disclosure is especially valuable since exceeding it presumably errors out. It doesn't fully describe error behavior or pagination handling beyond the cap, but the critical constraints are covered.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second clarifies format detail (UTF-8 BOM), and the third provides a crucial limit plus an alternative tool pointer. Exceptionally efficient and well front-loaded.

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 10,000-row cap, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description covers the key return characteristics (CSV text, encoding) and the critical constraint (row limit) well. It correctly references invoices_list for filter semantics. Minor gaps: no mention of what columns are exported, whether sort/order affect CSV output, or specific error behavior on exceeding the limit. But for a filtered-export tool with a sibling reference, this is largely complete.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds the fact that filters mirror invoices_list, which is useful orienting context, but doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Export a filtered list of invoices to CSV format' with a specific verb, resource, and format. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling invoices_export_zip by noting the 10,000-invoice limit and pointing large exports to the zip variant, which is the key distinction among export 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?

The description clearly states the use case (CSV export with Excel compatibility) and gives an explicit exclusion when to NOT use it ('use invoices_export_zip for large exports with files'). It references invoices_list filters as the parameter source. It doesn't enumerate exhaustive when-not scenarios but the main alternative is named clearly.

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