invoices_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does disclose the full scope of returned data (which is useful behavioral info), but it doesn't mention safety, whether this requires read permissions, whether a missing/invalid UUID produces an error, or whether companyId override affects behavior beyond a hint in the schema. For a read-only getter, the description 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?

A single informative sentence that front-loads the purpose (get complete details for specific invoice by UUID) and enumerates the returned data categories. Efficient and readable, though the data-category list is somewhat long; still earns its place since it signals the breadth of this tool versus lighter sibling getters.

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 read-only detail-getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned and how to identify the target invoice. The list of returned categories compensates for the absent output schema to a reasonable degree, though it could note pagination/format of lists or error behavior.

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 already documents both parameters (uuid and companyId). The description adds the ANAF/XML/PDF detail context but no per-parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the description burden.

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 tool retrieves complete details for a specific invoice by UUID, listing all returned data categories (line items, payment history, events, attachments, client/supplier info, XML/PDF status, ANAF submission). The verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like invoices_list (which is a list operation) and specialized getters like invoices_events or invoices_attachments.

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 the tool to fetch full invoice detail by UUID, and the name (invoices_get) pairs with siblings like delivery_notes_get and proforma_invoices_get, giving context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active company), and no exclusions distinguishing it from invoices_list.

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